GOP: Autopsy Time

[thebin]

Time to put that old thread out to pasture I think. The election is over. Good riddance.

Time for the the GOP to do some soul-searching. That was a thumping when the win was ripe for the taking. This from FT/Slate I think captures how the GOP has got to purge itself of the crazies or things are actually going to be worse next time, not better. Emphasis is my own.

"....But even a clumsy candidate might have beaten Obama if not for a simple factor that could not be overcome: the GOP’s growing extremism. The Republican strategy of making the election a referendum on the president’s handling of the economy was perfectly sound. The problem was that the Republican Party couldn’t pass the credibility test itself. For many voters disenchanted with Obama, it still was not safe to vote for his opponent.

This failure began with the spectacle of the extended primary season, which was dominated by candidates with views far outside the political mainstream. Rick Santorum rejected the separation of church and state. Newt Gingrich challenged the notion of judicial supremacy. Michele Bachmann claimed the government had been infiltrated by radical Muslims. Donald Trump refused to recognize the validity of Obama’s birth certificate. Rick Perry wanted to take down more parts of the federal government than he could successfully name. In the debates, the country saw the GOP talking to itself and sounding like a bizarre fringe party, not a responsible governing one.

Romney is not a right-wing extremist. To win the nomination, though, he had to feign being one, recasting himself as “severely conservative” and eschewing the reasonableness that made him a successful, moderate governor of the country’s most liberal state. He had to pass muster with his party’s right-wing base on taxes, immigration, climate change, abortion, and gay rights. Many of his statements on these issues were patently insincere, but that was hardly reassuring. Romney’s very insincerity and flexibility made it improbable that he would stand up to the GOP’s hyper-partisan congressional wing once elected any more than he had during the primaries.

Romney’s pandering to the base made it possible for the Obama campaign to portray him as a right-wing radical from the start of the campaign. Fear that he didn’t have the base locked down kept Romney from moving smoothly to the center once he had secured the nomination. It further encouraged his choice of Paul Ryan, a popular figure with the Tea Party. And when Romney tried, much too late, to move closer to the center, Republican Senate candidates, like Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana, kept popping up with disgusting reminders of the GOP’s retrograde views on gender issues. For women, Latinos, and young voters tempted to abandon Obama, the old Romney might have been a plausible alternative. The new Romney, fettered by a feverish GOP, was too risky a choice. According to exit poll results, Romney won men as expected, but lost among women by 11 points—too large a gender gap to be overcome.

Demographic change and better economic circumstances stand to make the Republican road back to the White House an even steeper climb in future years. Simply put, the party has to present a more conciliatory and reasonable face to sell itself to swing voters. To do that, it must elevate its own moderate voices, cut loose its theocrats, and liberate itself from the domination of Tea Party know-nothings.

So let the season of Republican recriminations begin. The GOP now faces the challenge of self-examination and internal reform that Democrats began to undertake after losing twice to Ronald Reagan. It desperately needs the kind of centrist reform movement that was led on the other side by the Democratic Leadership Council, which paved the way for the election of a centrist Democrat named Bill Clinton. Without that sort of renewal movement, the 2012 election may come to be seen less as a fluke than a harbinger."

www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2012/11/why_romney_lost_he_couldn_t_separate_himself_from_the_republican_party_s.html

[Nevada Hoya]

It is time to put Donald Trump out to pasture too. If there was ever was a sore loser...

And yes, thebin, I think your analysis is correct. Gov. Romney was a perfectly good candidate, but when he started to pander to the tea party, he lost credibility with a lot of people, who didn't know exactly what he stood for.

[TBird41]

My takeaway? If the GOP wants to be successful, it should bailout big companies that swing states are dependent on and do so in a manner that benefits constituent classes. It should ignore the upcoming entitlement crisis, because any attempt will be demagogued as crazy right winger killing Grandma, regardless of how many times you put forth plans with Democrats from Oregon, or former Clinton cabinet members. Taxes are for the "rich" to pay and we need to give government money to the politically connected for things we can pretend are accomplishing something good. Debts can be paid for later. Don't worry about it. We'll get to it.

You can expel the idiots and pick better candidates. It won't matter. This is no longer a center-right country. It's a center-left country, and that's only going to accelerate as people become more dependent on the government due to the lack of jobs.

CBO says there's about 25 years until the economy collapses. Hopefully they aren't being optimistic. [Edit: Turns out it was 25]

[thebin]

Nov 7, 2012 13:03:21 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

My takeaway? If the GOP wants to be successful, it should bailout big companies that swing states are dependent on and do so in a manner that benefits constituent classes. It should ignore the upcoming entitlement crisis, because any attempt will be demagogued as crazy right winger killing Grandma, regardless of how many times you put forth plans with Democrats from Oregon, or former Clinton cabinet members. Taxes are for the "rich" to pay and we need to give government money to the politically connected for things we can pretend are accomplishing something good.

This is no longer a center-right country. It's a center-left country, and that's only going to accelerate as people become more dependent on the government due to the lack of jobs.

CBO says there's about 15 years until the economy collapses. Hopefully they aren't being optimistic.

You don't honestly expect us to believe that the GOP is being any more grown up about the entitlement/budget crisis than the dems do you? The party whose candidate pledged to INCREASE defense spending massively without even know what to spend it on, when we already spend more than the next 10 nations combined? The party that gave us the gargantuan prescription drug bill without any clue how to fund it? If you mean to be serious about that I'm afraid you should have been supporting Gov. Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party yesterday.

[DFW HOYA]

Nov 7, 2012 13:03:21 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

You can expel the idiots and pick better candidates. It won't matter. This is no longer a center-right country. It's a center-left country, and that's only going to accelerate as people become more dependent on the government due to the lack of jobs.

It is still center-right, but you don't win by being "against" things, but "for" things. In hindsight, 2012 will look a lot like 2004, where the Democrats put up a ticket of a patrician (Kerry) and a slick up-an-comer (Edwards) that failed to make the case to the nation. Kerry is all but forgotten today, which may be Romney's fate as well.

As for Ryan, no GOP VP candidate from a losing ticket has ever been nominated for president four years later; only one has ever been nominated at all (Bob Dole, 1976 VP for Ford, nominee in 1996). However popular he is now, he may be as electorally relevant in 2016 as Sarah Palin was in 2012.

Demographics are not to be ignored. In 1988, George Bush won 62% of the white vote and carried OH, FL, PA, VA, NJ, Co, and even CA. He won 426 electoral votes. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 62% of the white vote and won none of these. This is not what Rush Limbaugh called "traditional America" anymore.

Finally, the blood-letting between the two futures of the GOP is unavoidable but ultimately necessary. Can the Bachmann-Palin-Santorum wing of the house coexist with a fiscally conservative/socially moderate wing (Jeb Bush, Jon Huntsman, Chris Christie) to regain the White House in four years, or are they prepared to coalesce themselves into an ideological purity test that risks losing another generation of younger voters?

Finally: the GOP primary process was a mess. The endless primaries and debate blunders only served to weaken the eventual nominee. It was almost better to have decided it at the covnention, as in the old days.

[TBird41]

Nov 7, 2012 13:07:28 GMT -5 thebin said:

Nov 7, 2012 13:03:21 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

My takeaway? If the GOP wants to be successful, it should bailout big companies that swing states are dependent on and do so in a manner that benefits constituent classes. It should ignore the upcoming entitlement crisis, because any attempt will be demagogued as crazy right winger killing Grandma, regardless of how many times you put forth plans with Democrats from Oregon, or former Clinton cabinet members. Taxes are for the "rich" to pay and we need to give government money to the politically connected for things we can pretend are accomplishing something good.

This is no longer a center-right country. It's a center-left country, and that's only going to accelerate as people become more dependent on the government due to the lack of jobs.

CBO says there's about 15 years until the economy collapses. Hopefully they aren't being optimistic.

You don't honestly expect us to believe that the GOP is being any more grown up about the entitlement/budget crisis than the dems do you? The party whose candidate pledged to INCREASE defense spending massively without even know what to spend it on, when we already spend more than the next 10 nations combined? The party that gave us the gargantuan prescription drug bill without any clue how to fund it? If you mean to be serious about that I'm afraid you should have been supporting Gov. Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party yesterday.

Sure. Whatever. I'm not going to argue with you. Say what you want, but 4 years from now, we're going to be about $20 trillion in debt, we'll still have anemic growth, the unemployment rate will be about the same as it is now and it'll be that much harder, if not impossible, save Medicare/Medicaid. And that's probably the best case scenario.

[bmartin]

Spare us the lectures on fiscal responsibility.

Doubling down on tax cuts and defense spending while promising the costs would be more than offset by unspecified budget and tax loophole cuts that would not affect current retirees, businesses, the middle-class, or any other targeted demographic or swing-state constituency was a far worse and more cynical fiscal policy than anything the Democrats will ever think up.

Everyone seems to forget that we had a balanced budget at one time, and as soon as the Republicans got concurrent control of the White House and Congress they blew it up forever. Why were the Bush tax cuts sunsetted after nine years rather than being made permanent? Because even with a huge projected surplus in 2001, they knew that making the tax cuts permanent would bankrupt the country.

The Democrats at least have offered real offsets and real policy choices instead of magic beans. The whole Mediscare issue that the Republicans used against the Democrats was there only because the Democrats included offsets for the first ten years of the ACA. I can't recall any instance when the Republicans offered a real, non-gimmick offset to any of their tax cuts or defense or other spending increases.

[thebin]

"Can the Bachmann-Palin-Santorum wing of the house coexist with a fiscally conservative/socially moderate wing (Jeb Bush, Jon Huntsman, Chris Christie) to regain the White House in four years, or are they prepared to coalesce themselves into an ideological purity test that risks losing another generation of younger voters?"

Frankly after seeing the Values Republicans totally ignore the grown-up/socially moderate Republicans for the last 20 years, I'm not really interested in coexisting with the Palins and Santorums so much as I'd like to see the party rise above electing such unworthy candidates to begin with. They are ruining the brand. We can clean it up faster without them. They need to be cut loose, not accommodated when their clearly don't know what "compromise" means.

We need to take the dinner menu away from the little kids. That's why during the primary season we end up with a steak dinner, a fish dinner, and then 7 orders of chicken nuggets with ketchup. The social conservatives have run the party pretty much with an iron fist for the last generation and in the process they have driven the GOP name into the ground for those under 40 or so...which by the way means ALL future voters. I'm less interested in coexisting with them now that they see they can't call the shots anymore than I am in taking the keys away from them before the car goes permanently over the demographic cliff.

[AustinHoya03]

Nov 7, 2012 14:06:22 GMT -5 thebin said:

"Can the Bachmann-Palin-Santorum wing of the house coexist with a fiscally conservative/socially moderate wing (Jeb Bush, Jon Huntsman, Chris Christie) to regain the White House in four years, or are they prepared to coalesce themselves into an ideological purity test that risks losing another generation of younger voters?"

Frankly after seeing the Values Republicans totally ignore the grown-up/socially moderate Republicans for the last 20 years, I'm not really interested in coexisting with the Palins and Santorums so much as I'd like to see the party rise above electing such unworthy candidates to begin with. They are ruining the brand. They need to be cut loose, not accommodated when their clearly don't know what "compromise" means.

We need to take the dinner menu away from the little kids. That's why during the primary season we end up with a steak dinner, a a rib eye dinner and 7 orders of chicken nuggets with ketchup. The social conservatives have run the party pretty much with an iron fist for the last generation and in the process they have driven the GOP name into the ground for those under 40 or so...which by the way means ALL future voters. I'm less interested in coexisting with them now that they see they can't call the shots anymore than I am in taking the keys away from them before the car goes permanently over the demographic cliff.

A rib eye is not a steak?

[thebin]

Nov 7, 2012 14:15:47 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Nov 7, 2012 14:06:22 GMT -5 thebin said:

"Can the Bachmann-Palin-Santorum wing of the house coexist with a fiscally conservative/socially moderate wing (Jeb Bush, Jon Huntsman, Chris Christie) to regain the White House in four years, or are they prepared to coalesce themselves into an ideological purity test that risks losing another generation of younger voters?"

Frankly after seeing the Values Republicans totally ignore the grown-up/socially moderate Republicans for the last 20 years, I'm not really interested in coexisting with the Palins and Santorums so much as I'd like to see the party rise above electing such unworthy candidates to begin with. They are ruining the brand. They need to be cut loose, not accommodated when their clearly don't know what "compromise" means.

We need to take the dinner menu away from the little kids. That's why during the primary season we end up with a steak dinner, a a rib eye dinner and 7 orders of chicken nuggets with ketchup. The social conservatives have run the party pretty much with an iron fist for the last generation and in the process they have driven the GOP name into the ground for those under 40 or so...which by the way means ALL future voters. I'm less interested in coexisting with them now that they see they can't call the shots anymore than I am in taking the keys away from them before the car goes permanently over the demographic cliff.

A rib eye is not a steak?

Boy none of the important stuff gets by you does it? Fixed.

[hoyatables]

The initial article sums up why I didn't / couldn't vote for Romney.

[TC]

Nov 7, 2012 14:40:17 GMT -5 hoyatables said:

The initial article sums up why I didn't / couldn't vote for Romney.

Salmon 2012!

[TC]

Nov 7, 2012 13:25:43 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

It is still center-right

On the day after marijuana and equal rights for marriage are the undisputed winners?

I'm not making the case that we are center-left or left-left or really-really-left or whatever amorphous and ambiguous designation that you want to use to try to describe the country as more your side than someone else's, but it is a little ridiculous to read that the morning after conservative social values pretty much get rejected.

[Buckets]

I would think that after Akin, Mourdock, and several referendums last night that this would be a good time to tell the socially conservative wing of the party to go pound sand. The number of current GOP voters who would sit out an election as a result of a more socially moderate but still fiscally conservative GOP pales in comparison to the number of voters in the middle who would consider voting GOP but for their antiquated social agenda.

[AustinHoya03]

Nov 7, 2012 14:56:38 GMT -5 TC said:

Nov 7, 2012 13:25:43 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

It is still center-right

On the day after marijuana and equal rights for marriage are the undisputed winners?

I'm not making the case that we are center-left or left-left or really-really-left or whatever amorphous and ambiguous designation that you want to use to try to describe the country as more your side than someone else's, but it is a little ridiculous to read that the morning after conservative social values pretty much get rejected.

But the nation didn't reject "conservative social values," the states of Washington, Maryland, Maine, Colorado, and Minnesota did.

The country overall is still center-right compared to the rest of the first world. And someone please buy T-Bird a beer.

ON EDIT: Also of note, someone should point out to DFW, who used to claim that I live in the only liberal city in Texas, that the "People's Republic of Dallas" again went for Obama, 57% to 41%, same as 2008.

Nov 7, 2012 14:24:26 GMT -5 thebin said:

Nov 7, 2012 14:15:47 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

A rib eye is not a steak?

Boy none of the important stuff gets by you does it? Fixed.

Ha, I thought perhaps it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the interchangeability of some of the GOP primary candidates.

Honestly, I'm not sure there was more than one good dinner in that group. And it came out overcooked.

[AustinHoya03]

www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/white-mans-burden?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/the_people_united

[DFW HOYA]

Nov 7, 2012 15:08:15 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

ON EDIT: Also of note, someone should point out to DFW, who used to claim that I live in the only liberal city in Texas, that the "People's Republic of Dallas" again went for Obama, 57% to 41%, same as 2008.

As above, it's all about demographics.

Dallas, both city and county, is now over 40% Hispanic, up from 10% just 30 years ago (The term "Latino" is not as indigenuous to Texas.). The city's ethnic split of 42% Hispanic, 22% black, and 30% white now lends itself better to Democratic candidates, though the mayor is Republican and much of the Congressional delegation is, due to gerrymandering. The suburban counties (Denton, Collin, Rockwall) are roughly 15% Hispanic and 75%+ white.

But philosophically (as any Austinite will tell you), Dallas is certainly not a liberal stronghold, even with a majority minority population. This is an example of how messages which might appeal to cultural conservatives in the Hispanic population goes unheeded in the current GOP approach.

In statewide offices, there is not a single elected Democrat. This too, demographically speaking, is subject to change. I would not be surpirsed to see Texas as a battleground state within the next two electoral cycles.

[EasyEd]

The Republicans have not nominated a conservative during the last fourteen election cycles with the exception of Goldwater in 1964 and, to a lesser extent, Reagan in 80 and 84 (to a lesser extent since he ran up a big decifit for that time). We've had Nixon three times, Ford, Bush 1 twice, Dole, Bush 2 twice, McCain and Romney, all of whom were moderates.

[hoya9797]

Nov 7, 2012 19:50:42 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

The Republicans have not nominated a conservative during the last fourteen election cycles with the exception of Goldwater in 1964 and, to a lesser extent, Reagan in 80 and 84 (to a lesser extent since he ran up a big decifit for that time). We've had Nixon three times, Ford, Bush 1 twice, Dole, Bush 2 twice, McCain and Romney, all of whom were moderates.

Which of the candidates in the primary would have qualified as a conservative?

[SSHoya]

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rank-and-file/264855/