Wake up call for the GOP
Fellow conservatives, there's no way to sugarcoat this. We got our clocks cleaned last night. Yes, we kept the House, mostly due to redistricting by gop state legislatures after the 2010 census. But we lost 2 seats in the Senate when the consensus earlier this year was that we would retake it. We put up terrible dumb candidates who just threw away their races. And of course, for the presidency, we lost an election that should've been ours. Obama is a failed first-term president who failed to present a clear agenda for solving this nation's problems. His campaign chose to demonize Romney and invoke class warfare rather than actually running on his record. And yet, Romney lost every swing state except North Carolina (even there, the margin was closer than expected). Lot of things went wrong, and we need to address it.
- At a macro level, the GOP needs to address the demographic time bomb. America is less white, more socially liberal, more educated, than it was in the 1980's. There are also more single women and less religious extremists, who are appalled by the GOP's extreme social and cultural agenda.
- The GOP is still stuck in the 1980 Reagan mindset. It has not presented a viable economic agenda that addresses the concerns of middle and working class voters in the 21st centuray global economy. The GOP worships at the altar of "free market enterprise," but its only solution to our nation's problems is more tax cuts.
- At a tactical level, Romney made a huge mistake by moving too far to the right during the GOP primary and failing to pivot to the center right after he clinched the nomination. He also failed to properly respond to Obama's odious Bain Capital attack during the summer. And his GOP convention was one of the worst in history; he failed to reintroduce himself to the American people and present a compelling governing agenda. His one shining moment was the first debate in which he performed brilliantly. But it wasn't enough.
The GOP has a lot of soul searching to do. Thankfully, I think we have a good chance of taking the Senate in 2014 once Obama overreaches. Also, 2016 has a deep bench of strong republican candidates for the presidency.
Dude, Obama is a personality cult. Nothing could have changed this. Anyone other than Obama, with Obama's record would have lost the election. You also have the media covering his ass.
~44% of those able to vote in this country did. You get a few points to show up to the poll and pull R on the lever and you win the race.
Real hard to defeat the party of freebies man. Bush is also a tough legacy to beat. Unfortunately the majority of voters are uneducated and simply went with the guy who talked about fairness all the time. That and those who can't understand the difference between chapter 7 and 11.
I feel bad for Romney. Such a successful and intelligent person having to cater to utter morons. Luckily Obama's policies will simply hurt the poor and barely middle class the most, thereby giving them their just desserts. I mean you have record high minority unemployment, yet Obama gets +95% of their vote. How do you defeat that kind of blind allegiance.
I just threw up in my mouth a little.
I know man, makes me sick to my stomach to see someone like Romney lose. Empathy all around tonight.
MBA-policy seems to get it.
TNA, not so much.
Only slightly relevant, but I thought it was funny: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/07/karl_rove_on_fox_news…
As much as it might irritate you guys, a large block of this country is religious. And abortion isn't a Christian thing, it is a human rights thing. If you think that a developing child has rights you are going to want to restrict people from hurting it. The government restricts what I can do with my body all the time.
4 more years of this train wreck and people will be pulling Republican for a long time to come.
The fact of the matter is that a growing number of young fiscal conservatives are socially progressive. The GOP is getting older and the social conservatives are dying off. The GOP needs to realize that social policies are largely to fault when it comes to the failure to attract the youth vote.
I agree that the Republican Party should not move to the left on all social issues and become a democratic-lite party. I believe that our 2 major parties should have clear philosophical differences. We should not fall into the trap of the 60's and 70's, when Nixon and Ford basically governed as liberals under the Republican name brand.
At the same time though, the GOP could discuss its core conservative values without coming across as angry, strident, and ignorant. For instance, a GOP nominee could say that he personally am pro-life and believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, due to health reasons he thinks that abortion should be legal but safe and rare and that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is through education and better economic opportunities for young single women. On gay marriage, he could say that marriage is a state issue and that he has no problems with state voters deciding on thses issues for themselves. Federalism is actually an important aspect of conservative thought. No idea why the GOP has abandoned this in favor of the federal government dictating all sexual matters.
I also agree that Obama's 2nd term will be a disaster and bad for this country. No argument from me on that point. But it does not mean that the GOP should not attempt to modernize and do a better job of reaching out to all demographic groups. We should not pander but instead present bold economic vision for this country that will appeal to everyone, not just the wealthy whites in country clubs.
Romney is a very smart exceptional man. I personally think he would have made the best president since Reagan. But he was fundamentally flawed in many ways and unable to persuade the American people that he was the right man for the times. My best wishes to him and his fine family.
It would be epic if Romney pulled a Coriolanus and convinced the Chinese to sit out a couple t-bill auctions.
1) What constructive purpose would that serve for both China and the US? 2) China has to buy USD assets to keep the RMB exchange rate where they want it. 3) There is about $16 trillion of public debt. The Fed owns $6.5 trillion of this. China owns just over a trillion, but so does Japan. The Fed is most certainly capable and willing to step in to minimize the effect of China suddenly and drastically reducing its Treasury holdings.
Yes, by printing USD and paying them off. Which will in turn be used to buy US assets thereby causing inflation. Only thing keeping the full force of inflation at bay is this endless cycle of rolling debt into future maturities. The second that stops and the monopoly money we call greenbacks get dumped into the system shit will hit the fan.
And people get older and their views change. Have a kid and see how your opinion on abortion changes. As do a bunch of things. I'll give you that the gay issue is a losing battle, but I don't see abortion going anywhere. And any change will only be on a national level. You will see have traditional conservatives in rural areas and moderates nationally.
Just like Romney. A super moderate Republican.
That's just not what is happening. No one all of a sudden started clamoring for segregation because they got old.
And the issue with abortion is more about a willingness to afford others the right to make a choice, not whether or not you like abortions (no one likes abortions). Attitudes about the rights people have to make choices about their own body can certainly evolve.
What are the big social issues with Republicans? Gays and abortion. I gave you that the gay issue is dying. Fine. Abortion isn't segregation and peoples views do change. It is also not going to be banned anytime soon. I do think there could be sensible regulation regarding it.
Opinions change on fiscal issues, foreign policy, etc. And lets hope and pray that Obamacare saves tons of money like it was promised. If it becomes another black hole like I think it will be you will see people change their mind real fast once the bill comes.
College students are idealistic idiots. I really don't want the majority of them supporting anything my party supports. People who are largely insulated from the real world and sucking off the teat of mom and dad aren't a good gauge of where a party should be.
Just look at those OWS clowns, their demographics and their demands. Complete joke.
While this is a very sad and horrible day for a once great country, it is not the end of the Republican Party. Sadly, when the Republicans rise again it will be running a country that is a shadow of its former self.
Oh and if you think segregation is dead you are wrong. Take a look at cities and look at racial dispersion. Also see Voter ID laws, drug laws, redistricting, laws removing the right to vote from felons, etc etc.
Just call it a different name and it is business as usual.
Wouldn't having a kid make people be more pro-abortion? Only semi-joking here. If fairly responsible people can barely raise a kid, think about how shitty it must be for a kid to be raised in a dysfunctional household.
And let's get something straight - conservatives are not "pro-life", they are "pro-birth". Life lasts longer than 9 months in the womb and popping out of a vagina.
If I had a SB I'd send it over. You are speaking the truth.
If conservatives were really serious about preventing abortions, they would support free birth-control for all Americans and support the teaching of safe sex in school rather than the 'abstinence' bull shit that doesn't work. This would not only decrease abortion, but also unwanted pregnancies that are brought to term in dysfunctional (and often low-income) households that are incapable of raising children, resulting in decreases in money spent on government programs that have to support these children (TANF, head start, DSHS, etc.). This would actually address the problem rather than perpetuate it.
But of course, the republicans have to support the fringe elements in their party that do not support informed rationale and pragmatic positions that address real problems, but instead try to force all people to abide by their narrow world-view and adopt their 2000 year old principals that have little practical use in today's society.
and..... rant done.
"Obama is a failure" - Someone who didn't vote for him the first time and always votes for the "conservative"
My post from another thread:
He doesn't need to reach out to non-white voters. That's one of the biggest myths ever. Look at this vote. It was 72% white. He still got 29% of the Latino vote (only 2% worse than McCain).
Republicans should be striving to get 60%+ of the white vote. If that happens Midwestern states will go Republican and that will decimate Democrats. How do you push Romney's percentage from 58% of the white vote to 62-65% of the white vote?
Abortion. That's it. That's the only thing you need to change.
You remove abortion and you lose the religious vote. Too big of a block. There are a ton of white people not voting. Get them to vote and you win.
No one but Obama can energize the low propensity voters like he can. If this was Kerry with Obama's record we would be celebrating Romney and the reviving of this nation.
Where are they going exactly? Maybe simply moderate social policy initiatives so they are a bit less polarizing? Why please the religious right 100% when 60% would do?
You remove abortion and you will have religious people not showing up. You will also be pissing off high propensity voters for low propensity voters.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/2013443/
I know it is a weird source, but read the first post (ill post it here). It is talking about why Bush I lost his re-election.
" think many political observers would argue that voters did not think President Bush was attentive enough to economic problems in the United States. Partly it was the mild recession. Partly it was the debt issue. Partly it was the reversal on "no new taxes." There were other economic worries at the time as well. Bill Clinton's internal campaign message (the message campaign staffers repeated to themselves every day) was "It's the economy, stupid." Clinton's campaign staff felt that if they hammered President Bush on the economy at every opportunity Clinton would win the election. There was also the sense among some voters that Bush was so preoccupied with foreign affairs that he had been inattentive to domestic policy issues. I imagine there are political scientists and others who would cite other factors, but there seems to be a general consensus that the Clinton campaign was on the right track with its internal reminder of what to tell the voters: "It's the economy, stupid.""
Unemployment was 7.5% when Bush lost. It is 8% now. Labor participation was at ~66% when Bush lost, it is at ~63% now. National debt was at $4.2T when Bush lost (56% increase from Reagan's final year), it is $16T now (~49% increase from Bush's final year).
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-a…
Just take a look at those stats and you tell me why Obama won? Complete anomaly. Obama got low propensity voters to vote simply because he is who he is. Democrats better start thinking of their next move because they aren't going to find a personality like him any time soon.
Question: Why is it everyone forgets that W Bush took office during a recession? How is it Clinton rides the tech bubble, pops right when he bounces out of office, and he gets off scot-free for the shitty economy in the next decade?
While I agree with you fine sir, the proletariat can't understand the difference between Chapter 7 and 11 bankruptcy. What makes you think they can understand monetary policy?
Regardless, nothing can fix the real problem, which is idiocracy. That's why there is no hope in the very long run.
Step 1: Prevent the next GOP primary from being an absolute circus.
Michelle Bachman? Rick Perry!? Herman Cain?!!! Mittens was merely the smartest on the shortbus. Like watching a cartoon.
Step 2: Acknowledge that social conservatism is becoming less viable. Hating gays and abortions, in spite of religious credo, is disillusioning more and more young people.
Chinese need us for now. Not enough domestic consumption. As that changes and as other countries become consumers they will not need the US as much. We will pay them back in funny money, they will buy our assets and drive the price up.
It isn't going to end pretty that is for sure, unfortunately it will be the USA which is screwed. Luckily for us everyone is screw along with us.
I really want to point out that Romney won young white voters (age 18-29) 51-44%. When people cite GOP beliefs (abortion, gay marriage) that are unpopular among young voters, I think they're missing the racial component - specifically with Hispanics.
Obama just killed it with Hispanics and blacks, which are becoming a larger part of the electorate. I am a relatively strong Catholic, and I know most Hispanics in my church are very anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. The GOP losses out so bad to Hispanics is of critical importance.
If you want to discuss changing an immigration policy, that would be more substantive than changing abortion and gay marriage IMO because it gets you the Hispanic vote. Hispanics are largely very socially conservative.
I could go on about these various issues, but I think the biggest part of this election is that racial component. If Romney could get Hispanics like Bush did, he wins. Swaying that Hispanic vote towards the GOP involves championing anti-abortion sentiment.
Just want to point out a fact here that people may have missed:
Republicans have won the popular vote ONCE in last SIX Presidential elections.
Let me say that differently:
Republicans have won the popular vote ONCE in last TWENTY years.
I'm an independent so I'm no expert on what they are doing wrong or what the solution is, but if you deny there is a problem appealing to the public you are missing the picture.
Very good point. Since Reagan, only 2 republicans have won the popular vote: George Bush Sr. in 1988 over Dukakis and his son in 2004 over Kerry. (Note to both parties: never nominate someone from Massachusetts)
I think there are several reasons for this. First is the demographic problem I discussed in my post. Second, Bill Clinton deserves a lot of credit because he modernized the democratic party in the 90's by bringing it to the center and making them acceptable to white suburban voters on issues such as taxes, crime, welfare, and the economy. Believe it or not, states such as california, michigan, illinois, and new jersey, voted republican in presidential elections from the 50's until the early 90's. And third, the GOP in the post-Reagan era moved way too far to the right on social and cultural issues and became hijacked by the christian right, especially those from the South. This alienated middle-class moderate whites in the northeast, midwest, and the west coast.
The wake up call for the Republicans is to moderate their beliefs and run as George W did in 2000 on a non interventionist foreign policy (laughable, but Bush did stress this to some degree in 2000) being "compassionate" cutting taxes in order to create jobs for people not because "the government doesn't have a right to your income" (this hurts them because of class differences) and to stop propping up the racial bigotry of a portion of their base in order to appeal to socially conservative Hispanics, Muslims, and anti communist Asians who may support their anti abortion stance given that they are not looked at as outsiders. Outside of the abortion issue, they shouldn't involve themselves on social policy like weed legalization, gay marriage, etc as these stances will become highly unpopular in the coming years. Lastly, they need to focus as the Democrats have done in recent years, on nominating attractive, personable candidates like Kennedy/Clinton/Reagan/Obama who have great personal approval ratings and are well liked in that way regardless of your political beliefs.
Illegals depress wages and prevent automation. The also allow businesses to transfer costs to the public by under paying, not having healthcare, whatever. We do not need more unskilled workers. We have too many unskilled Americans as it is.
It would be real easy to reduce illegal immigration. Make the penalty for employing an illegal utterly draconian. It would raise revenue and remove the demand. People would leave naturally.
Ya that will never happen. Even in the most hardcore right-wing states, Arizona, Alabama, and Texas, everyone of these laws have had major exceptions put in place. Why place an exception? So their favorite business sectors can find a loophole so their biggest corporate donors don't see decreased earnings from rising labor costs. This is just further evidence of why most right-wing stances are just simply talking points to get votes from their base, not because they actually intend to truly attack the core of those problems.
I am fiscally conservative and would love to support the Republican party, but the party has not been fiscally conservative in almost 50 years. If the Republicans had truly stuck to their roots of fiscal responsibility rather than becoming a slightly modified version of the big spending Democratic party, we would not be in this mess right now. The fact that there is a distinction between Republicans and Libertarians is a manifestation of the party's inability to deliver fiscal responsibility.
The reasons for their lack of responsibility are pretty straight forward. Being fiscally responsible is not popular and doesn't get you votes or campaign funds. You need to promise favors to different entities in hopes of raising funds and getting face time to win elections. So, the battle between Democrats and Republicans has little to do with fiscal responsibility. It has more to do with where does each group want to pump their money into a bloated federal government and some social issues to target/engage segments of simple voters who don't understand finance.
All of this is why Ron Paul and other Libertarian voters did not get any traction. If the Republicans want to win the next election, they should consider looking at how they can engage those voters (while somehow not completely losing their corporate donations for campaign funding) and not tailor their message towards social conservatives. The social conservatives reside in states that they will never lose anyways. The fiscal conservatives reside in swing states. Till the party figures that out, they can continue losing gimme elections like this because they are too stubborn to adapt.
Quo minus quo illo fuga eum. Omnis similique dolor expedita numquam nesciunt maiores et. Ex nobis earum quis vitae delectus.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Laudantium perspiciatis aut quis voluptatem veniam. Quibusdam inventore et voluptates quia qui aut. Assumenda dolor cupiditate tenetur aut sed repudiandae velit in.
Eius est et blanditiis et vel esse. Sed cum mollitia quidem et. Quia corporis ut expedita perspiciatis explicabo.
Quis earum et nam consequatur et. Explicabo repellat numquam vel.