Leading conservative talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham are both arguing that the Republican party will or should be shut down if Mitt Romney loses in November -- an idea that, however hard to believe, gives you an indication of the right wing's dissatisfaction with the Republican party.

"If you can't beat Barack Obama with this record, then shut down the party. Shut it down, start new, with new people. Because this is a gimme election, or at least it should be," Ingraham said on her radio program yesterday. "Election after election, we hire people who have lost previous campaigns, who have run campaigns that have failed, who have messaged campaigns where the message fell flat, and they keep getting re-hired."

Where Ingraham made an argument, Limbaugh made a prediction: The Republicans would fall, but not before blaming the conservative base for their woes and opening a window for a third, more conservative party to take their place.

"If Obama wins, let me tell you what it's the end of: The Republican Party. There's gonna be a third party that's gonna be oriented toward conservatism. I know Rand Paul thinks libertarianism. And I know if Obama wins, the Republican Party is gonna try to maneuver things so conservatives get blamed," he said.

"The only problem is, right now Romney's not running a conservative campaign. But they're gonna set it up to say, 'Well, the right sat home,' or, 'The right made Romney be other than who he is.' They'll try to deflect the blame, but they got who they want."

In theoretical national elections Ron Paul polled just as well as Romney, essentially Romney has and never will emerge beyond attracting those who will simply vote for anyone other than Obama. He's not a candidate of interest.

In the previous election Obama garnered more votes than any POTUS in history, you just aren't going to beat a Reagan type incumbent with a scoop of vanilla. You need some sprinkles and shit.

Let the recriminations begin in the Republican Party for Romney's upcoming loss to Obama! When you're the inexperienced challenger (Romney), it plays right into Obama's hands when your convention is inferior to the president's. Obama had Clinton to validate him for four more years to the vital center; Romney had....Clint Eastwood?!

It is Romney's election to lose. Unfortunately, he is turning out to be a classic example of campaign-by-committee: somebody who apparently is told what to say to the next group. He does have convictions and points of view, but they are hidden behind a wall of ambiguous allusions and "trust-me-not-him" rhetoric. But the same can be said of Obama. He is no more specific in his "trust me for another 4 year. I will probably get it right this time" position. As a lame-duck president with a split Congress. Sure. You bet he'll get things done.

Yet as Freeman points out, Obama IS the incumbent and has a few things going for him. Still, a determined, directed, and specifics-oriented Republican campaign should be able to run over the Obama campaign. On the other hand, he was equally inexperienced when he ran for Office.

For example, Obama recently started hypocritically chiding Romney for his lack of foreign affairs experience. We have only to look at Obama's long experience in foreign affairs before HE took office to have a good laugh at that verbal dung-ball. On the other hand, Obama DID get the Nobel Peace Prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Obama had the chutzpah to demean the Office of President by tripping over the Inauguration confetti still on the streets in his hurry to get to the airport to actually accept this now-meaningless decoration. Well, there was that million dollars to add to his bank account, I reckon. Now Romney, who misses a chance to not defend himself when spitballs are thrown at him, arrogantly (or naively) hides behind an "I don't have to show you anything!" strategy. He cannot even confidently embrace his wealth in a realistic and practical way to the public, thus, making it easy to portray him as a clueless blue blood living off inherited funds from mummy and daddy.

And let's face it. Ryan has much more charisma. When the 2nd violin plays better than the 1st violin, that isn't good. Thus, Obama went with the cheerful but goofy Joe Biden. No chance of getting upstaged there. So why does charisma matter? Because the Presidency is a figurehead in many ways, where the real "work" (so to speak) takes place in Cabinet and Congress (Well, where it is SUPPOSED to happen, anyway). Presidential campaigns now last at least two years. I say make them last two weeks, for all it matters. What really matters is the constant array of suspect individuals who continue to fill the seats of Congress, year after year. THAT is where we should be spending most of our time perusing.

Frankly, both conventions were over-the-top cream puffs, filled with hot air and lard. Truly, the Republicans were led astray by giving Clint free reign on what he was going to say. Where were Romney's handlers at that point? I think that if they went away, it would not matter in the least, especially since they are no longer used to actually nominate the candidates. The candidates don't even bother with saying anything meaningful. We'll see if the debates show anything different.

It's interesting to note that some of the opinion formers in Republican circles are already preparing the ground for the blame game, presumably calculating that if Romney is behind before the debates he's certainly not going to come out of them ahead. Ultimately this is all their own fault. The right didn't put up any sane candidates and didn't even manage to coagulate around the least worst of the freaks parade who did stand for the nomination. Everybody is now saying how much better Paul Ryan is as a candidate, so where was he in the primaries ? It was obvious at the time that Gingrich, Perry, Cain (!!), Santorum etc were deeply flawed candidates who could never win. Nobody wanted Romney but he was allowed a clear run at the nomination because nobody else with any realistic chance was put up against him, and even then he almost lost.

I've never really gotten the impression that the Republicans are taking this year's Presidential election seriously.

Well, it's not so much that, Sassenach, as the fact that the Repub Party is very fractured. It might appear that they are nothing more than a bunch of Tea Party maniacs yelling "FIRE!", but that isn't correct. In fact, there are several factions, with the so-called "moderates" getting pummeled and run over the most (similar to their Democratic counterparts). Several are retiring or have been voted out by more strident advocates. Over time, all parties change. Look at the Dems before the 2008 election. Who did they really have to put up for election? Not much, and they gambled on a relatively unknown and inexperienced Barack Obama. Fortunately, he had the youth and charisma that carried him through. Had his personality been more like Romney or even Biden, he may have not made it. The Republicans are in turmoil, in spite of what might appear otherwise. That is partly why you saw so many "odd-ball" candidates come out of the woodwork this time around, in addition to the usual lot. And that is probably why Romney's campaign looks so disparate and desperate. They have a fractious and increasingly unstable base of varying positions. For better or worse, Romney appears to have tried to break bread with all of them, only to appear to the public as a candidate with varying positions and opinions. Well, many politicians change their minds (even Obama has had to do that, once he got into office and saw that he just can't smile and watch Hope and Change occur). And if Romney loses, the Republican Party will probably go through a major restructuring, for better or worse.

Such predictions from Limbaugh are premature. Romney will not lose by much if he does lose, and the Republicans will control the House and possibly get a slim majority in the Senate, hold most Governorships and many State legislatures, and will still have a common purpose at a national level to ensure that they win in 16. To compare with UK politics, The Tories in 2001 were in a worse position (had lost two elections in a row, barely increasing support and bitteely divided over Europe). Labour in 1983 were at an even more serious position - not only losing badly a second time, but with a centrist breakaway (the SDP) taking votes from them, and a problem with Trotskyist entryists and hard-left throwbacks internally as well as leaders seen as ineffective. In both cases the parties recovered and got back into government.

There are divisions within any 'broad church' party, and the FPTP system encourages the formation of two major parties with broad appeals. The 'axis' between them will alter over time, and the parties may dissolve/become minor parties and be replaced by others, but the inertia of a two party system makes them resilient. The last reconfiguration where the two main parties changed in the US happened over 150 years ago, when the Republicans emerged from the ashes of a series of anti-Democrat movements. The 'Progressives' had a brief show about 100 years ago, but were nothing much once Teddy Roosevelt was out of the scene. but otherwise, the R/D Hegemony has survived for several generations, even though both parties are completely different to those of Lincoln or Jackson.

It may be that the Tea Party faction tires of trying to take control and exert it's views on the 'mainstream party' and tries to launch a third party. However, the outcome would likely be that the Democrats would benefit from a split right wing vote (as they did in 92 and 96 with Perot), which would then give the Republican machine a chance to adapt as long as it holds the position of main opposition.

A breakaway to the centre is also possible, but would always be squeezed when a close race emerges between the main two. Unless there is a strong enough new force to gain a foothold somewhere, it may simply end up as an analogue at a local level of one of the two major parties - not always consistently either - and gaining such a foothold would be difficult because not only do you have the FPTP system, you also have gerrymandering (most effective when done on a bipartisan basis), state rules designed to make it harder for smaller and newer parties, huge amounts of money invested in the existing parties and a longstanding dichotomy that makes for an easy media narrative.

I expect that whatever the outcome of this election is, the Republicans will have a good chance to win in 16. After all, a lot of potentially strong options decided to sit this one out on the assumption (presumably) that it would be hard to beat an incumbent

Look at the Dems before the 2008 election. Who did they really have to put up for election? Not much, and they gambled on a relatively unknown and inexperienced Barack Obama. Fortunately, he had the youth and charisma that carried him through. Had his personality been more like Romney or even Biden, he may have not made it.

Well they did also have Hillary, who began the campaign as favourite and arguably would have been a better pick for them. They may struggle in 2016 though, because there don't seem to be too many serious contenders on the horizon to replace Obama.

The Republicans are in turmoil, in spite of what might appear otherwise. That is partly why you saw so many "odd-ball" candidates come out of the woodwork this time around, in addition to the usual lot.

Looking from the outside in I'd say they were all oddball candidates with the exception of Hunstman, wo seemed to me to be head and shoulders above the rest of them and promptly failed miserably in the primaries. I don't buy the theory often seen in the progressive press that all Republicans are weirdos and protestant fundamentalists though, that can't possibly be the case. There have to be a number of significantly better candidates out there who could have chosen to run, any one of whom could have beaten Romney and probably won this election. I hear a lot about Chris Christie, Marco Rubio and a few others. In all honesty I don't know a great deal about these guys but they don't exactly need to be the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt to be much better options than the actual candidates. So where the hell are they ? If this election really is such an open goal as people are saying then why did they all sit on their hands ?

It's a very tough election against Obama. Think of how few of our dear Republican friends here could even begin to admit that they're facing a tough challenge. From the get go they needed to bring their A game and have a candidate with a detailed comprehensive plan the public would buy into. Instead it's been hole #1 & hole #2 politics in the primaries, followed by Mr. wishwashy trust me I know how to run things, just don't ask about the details Romney.

I seem to recall in the wake of Obama's win in 2008 the Republican sorts unanimously saying they would set aside moral issues politics to get back power. In large measure I believe that made a big difference in the 2010 gains.

[quote="Sassenach"

Looking from the outside in I'd say they were all oddball candidates with the exception of Hunstman, wo seemed to me to be head and shoulders above the rest of them and promptly failed miserably in the primaries. I don't buy the theory often seen in the progressive press that all Republicans are weirdos and protestant fundamentalists though, that can't possibly be the case. There have to be a number of significantly better candidates out there who could have chosen to run, any one of whom could have beaten Romney and probably won this election. I hear a lot about Chris Christie, Marco Rubio and a few others. In all honesty I don't know a great deal about these guys but they don't exactly need to be the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt to be much better options than the actual candidates. So where the hell are they ? If this election really is such an open goal as people are saying then why did they all sit on their hands ?[/quote]

I agree about Huntsman, by the way. His measured and intelligent approach obviously did not appeal to advocate-oriented Repubs; nor did his prior experience under Obama help much. No, not all Repubs are nutballs, no more than all Dems are socialistic, tree-hugging apologists who never saw a Gov't spending program they did not embrace. One or two, at least.

As for earlier comments about Ms Clinton, exactly how much faith are you going to put into somebody who moved into New York expressly and only to get elected to congress? About as much as the usual politician who suddenly "sees the light" and jumps ship to the other party because there is an opening to exploit. As to where are the "better" candidates? I believe that, having watched what candidates go through and have to do to get elected, nobody with the actual intelligence to be President wants to. Would you? For example, I don't think what somebody read or did 30 years ago (save a felony or two) should be used against them in the current day. "So tell us, Mr. Bluster. Just why did you ignore Melanie at your Junior Prom?" or "Your friend Billy Wuz told THE PRESS that you took a Snickers bar when you were six? So, does stealing still come easy to you these days? Don't you think that a reputation as a thief is not a good prerequisite for being President of the United States?"

You know I love it when Democrats/Liberals talk about how great Huntman was and how they would have voted for him if only Republicans had been sane enough to pick him. They think he was a moderate because he said Evolution is a proven scientific fact and Global Warming is real.

However, it neglects the fact that he was pro-life, pro-gun, anti-same sex marriage (though I believe he supported civil unions) wanted to change the income tax to only two brackets (15% and 28%) and wanted to reduce all capital gains taxes to 0%.

Sure, he's a conservatve. He did at least come across as being sane, considered and willing to at least talk about compromise. You don't have to agree with all of a candidate's policy positions to regard them as being a decent candidate for office. Besides, while I'm personally pro-choice and anti-gun and don't have any especially strong objections to same sex marriage, were I an American voter these wouldn't be the kind of issues that would swing my vote except insofar as I feel somewhat uncomfortable about candidates who have obsessive, faith-based positions on those issues.

As for earlier comments about Ms Clinton, exactly how much faith are you going to put into somebody who moved into New York expressly and only to get elected to congress? About as much as the usual politician who suddenly "sees the light" and jumps ship to the other party because there is an opening to exploit.

This is something that is always going to be more of a big deal for an American. In Britain we see this kind of thing all the time and take it for granted. In fact there are very few MPs who are born and bred in the constituencies they represent. Certainly I don't see it in the same light as defection to the other party.

The reason I thought Clinton might have been a better bet is simply that she's a much more experienced politician who had a better team around her. She's unlikely to have made so many of the mistakes that characterised Obama's first couple of years and probably would have been more ruthless in exploiting the Dems' control of Congress while they had it. That's just speculation though, we can never know how things would have played out.

ARJ - I didn't think Huntsman was a moderate. Just that he was credible. Which exceeds the standing of his rivals, frankly. After him, Romney was the best of a bad bunch. We all know that the real heavyweights, those with conviction, experience and some personal appeal (regardless of how ideologically pure or impure they are) sat this one out. Perhaps they were wrong, and they could have beaten Obama this year. Mind you, this strikes me as an election the Republicans might want to lose - the next four years are going to be tough.

Sass - I think that local ties are more of an issue than they used to be. The MP where I live/lived has pretty much always been from the area or adjacent to the one they represent. There are notable MPs, particularly from the past when we didn't have full suffrage or roughly equal seat sizes, or where a party just doesn't have local candidates, who were not living where they stood. But I certainly detect from voters a desire to have a 'local' candidate (although that will not likely override party preference in most cases). It will perhaps be odd the next time. We may have 50 fewer seats and a load of MPs struggling to find a winnable seat wherever (just as in the 90s when Francis Maude went from Warwickshire to Sussex to find a safe seat), or there could be a snap election (and many local parties have not chosen candidates yet, because of uncertainty over the boundary changes.

sass

more ruthless in exploiting the Dems' control of Congress while they had it.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/12/8 ... uster.html

This is an example of the publics inability to remember even recent history. Republicans have been saying this for some time. But it ain't true.
The Senate was tied up by filibusters for 2 years..So there was no effective control of the Senate.
(Filibusters are possible because of arcane rules that allow only 40 senators from as little as 28& of the US by population to stop legislation in its tracks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Firstly, RickyP is false. It takes 41 senators to stop a filibuster, not 40. There were 60 Dem and independent caucusing senators for some of his first two years.
Secondly, the House of Representatives was under Dem control for the first two years. (Remember Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House?)

Not all Senate bills require cloture (a 60/100 Senate vote). Budget bills for example, do not require cloture. Have any of those came out of the Senate approved?

My point is that Harry Reid's Senate is the blockade, not only the Republican's in the Senate.

As for the 28%... Here is the data for the time period in question.
(I have to go to work after a week long vacation. I will give the numbers after I tabulate. I would bet that 28% is a bit of a reach. To be expected, though...)

I did the work, using US Census 2010 populations HERE, the census sort of being the official legislative numbers. If you have both senators from 21 states you'd have 42 senators, enough to filibuster. So what's the population of the 21 smallest states relative to the overall? I checked my numbers over three times because I couldn't believe it, but the 21 smallest states represent just 11.32% of the total. In fact, the 21 smallest states all together don't have as many residents as California alone does. With the votes of just over half in these 21 states - in other words with less than 6% of the voting population - you could elect enough senators to stymie the Senate. And with both senators from 26 states you could have a majority, and that would be just 17.82% of the population (or just 9% of the vote). To get 60 senators, the number is 24.22% (or just over 12% of the vote). [Of course, these are just theoretical numbers - reality could never work out so neatly.]

Wow.

Wow.

I used to be a defender of the Electoral College and of our system of representation, since I saw it as the basis upon which the independent colonies originally agreed to union, but after seeing this I have to say that I'd be WAY more open to the idea of some sort of reform than I'd have been five minutes ago.