How did Obummer win? The Republicans put a worse candidate out there than any other possibility--with maybe the exception of Rick Santorum.

The economy hasn't improved much. Obummer has expanded the GWoT. Civil liberties continue to be curbed with some of the worst legislation in our nation's history (NDAA).

So how will the Republicans respond in 4 years? Will Rush Limbaugh honor his promise to leave the GOP? Will you continue to support awful candidates solely because they aren't the other guy?

What happens on out?

I'm calling it. This is the first stage of the demise of the GOP.

It would have been interesting to see how Ron Paul might have gotten on in this election. The more Paulite of the Congressional candidates have apparently done much better than the Tea Party crowd overall, although I can't really remember any of the details.

Could this be the moment the Paulistas have been waiting for.....;)

1. The Republicans shot themselves in the foot, over and over, with a drawn-out series of whiny debates.
2. Romney did himself no favors by trying to cater to the extreme elements of the Party, which in the end did not matter on whit, rather than focusing on catering to the general electorate, even after he got the nomination.
3. The campaign had the appearance of an amateur hour. Much the same could be said for their Convention.
4. Romney failed to make positive headway by not following up on erroneous claims made against him; failed to be upfront about "the rest of the story" on his plans and the Ryan budget; and he tried to look/act like a regular guy and failed, rather than trying to present a positive image of a successful rich guy who is a decent human being. Instead of the clueless WASP he looked like.
5. The Republican Platform dooms itself by continuing to take water for the Religious Right, rather than stuffing them back into a corner where they belong. Pushing agenda items that sound like they came from an Iranian imam or medieval pope just isn't what this nation needs. Most everybody enjoys a little religion in their lives, but continuing attempts to break down the so-called separation of Church and State (except when it comes time to collect taxes, of course) by amending State and US constitutions, for example, is not what our country needs. Romney had the decency, at least, to keep his religion and religious works in the background. Too bad that he did not do the same with the Republican platform he ran on. After all, who else will the "Religious Right" vote for, anyway? A Liberal, Godless Democrat? In the past, Republicans used to either ignore them or just give them lip service at their prayer meetings. Candidates still got their votes. That's all they are good for, anyway.
6. The Republicans suffered greatly because they let the Democrats define them and thus, did little to correct or clarify the characterizations. Who knows, maybe the Republican Party is so clueless, so lacking in intellectual depth and theory (i.e. Democrats), that they just don't know how to handle a National Election any longer. Romney SHOULD have won, based on Obama's record and the current conditions. That he could not simply underscores how inept he and the Party have become. Like the Minnesota Vikings, for example.

It's possible that we're all underestimating the level of enthusiasm for Obama among the core support. A friend of mine visited several polling precints in Detroit with his news crew and reports that the average waiting time to vote was over 2 hours and it was party time in line everywhere he went, with people genuinely happy to be there. Yes, this is Detroit and these would mostly have been black voters, but the assumption going into this election was that the black vote had grown disillusioned and wouldn't turn out in significant enough numbers. That was obviously wrong, it seems the Democrat vote was a lot more motivated than pundits imagined they would be.

Beating Obama was always going to be tough, that's why so many of the better Republican candidates sat this one out.

Indeed. The 'enthusiasm gap' wasn't actually there.

sass

It's possible that we're all underestimating the level of enthusiasm for Obama among the core support.

Who do you mean "we" white man?
The election was over in April.... Romney, nor the GOP could entirely run from the public record of their atrocious primary campaign and parade of idots. Romneys' etch a sketch tactic, portrayed in the debates, did work to a slight extent, but there aren't enough of the small uncommitted middle who possess the ability to totally forget everything that was said before.

George's analysis is dead on ... but for one thing. You can't change the essential character of the GOP easily. It is dominated by the religious right because they make up so much of the GOP and are essential to gaining the nomination. (Not just for President but in many if not most states the nomination for lower offices too.)
Romnye tried very hard, and fairly skillfully to demonstrate a veneer that was suppossed to say "Hey, All those things I committed to in the primary ...just kidding."
But the media and people at large have memories.
The really good thing to come out of this election is that the vast money poured into pacs wasn't rewarded with electoral results. Turns out just yelling the same ideas louder (more commercials etc.) doesn't work.
The US is becoming more "left". Examples:
Gay marriage is on its way to general aceptance...(Though I think this isn't a left issue, its a freedom issue)
Obama Care' benefits will begin to efffect the lives of a lot of people. And as it becomes a reality and turns out to be largely beneficial or at least benign ... it will change attitudes. I expect the next election it will be "Keep your government hands off my Obama Care"....
There are no easy fixes or tricks for the GOP. If they want to appeal to the majority, they'll have to change their policies. And their core voter, who's support necessary for the primary process, won't change. They will die out... .

I'm not sure it's true to say that America is becoming more left. A Republican running on a fiscal hawk ticket but without any of the cultural baggage could easily have won this election, and there are still lots of them out there. I think what we'll see come out of this election is a realisation that social conservatism is no longer the election-winning force it once was. It'll take time for that to filter into candidate selection in the Republican Party but it will happen in the end. To some extent that has already happened. By all accounts the Republicans in Michigan all try their hardest to avoid touching on things like abortion and concentrate solely on bread and butter issues. Granted, that's a very blue state, but it's an easy template to replicate and we'll gradually see more states starting to do it.

When it comes to the crunch what the last two elections have amply demonstrated is that the religious right has nowhere else to go and can be relied on to vote Republican anyway. They despised both McCain and Romney but still voted for them. They don't especially need to be pandered to. Their bluff can be called, and I think it will be eventually.

georgeatkins wrote:1. The Republicans shot themselves in the foot, over and over, with a drawn-out series of whiny debates.

The RNC Debates? You really think that had an effect? Sure, it had the effect of making Romney look like the big government Rockefeller Republican he is, but that's vetting. Democrats had just as many candidates in 2008, and that didn't hurt them. Addiitonally, I've seen no evidence--even anecdotal--that supports that position.

Explain to me how your argument works.

georgeatkins wrote:2. Romney did himself no favors by trying to cater to the extreme elements of the Party, which in the end did not matter on whit, rather than focusing on catering to the general electorate, even after he got the nomination.

Which extreme elements? The only one I know of is the anti-abortion (even if by rape) caucus. He certainly didn't cater to the "extreme" deficit haws, the fed hawks, or the non-interventionists. Sure, he made himself to appear a much more pro-war candidate, but he even paled in comparison to some.

By catering to the general electorate, what specifically do you mean? Was he to lie more?

georgeatkins wrote:3. The campaign had the appearance of an amateur hour. Much the same could be said for their Convention.

Scripted vote results, ignoring other candidates votes, ridiculous appearances (Eastwood), to name a few, were all part of the master plan. You are right here.

georgeatkins wrote:4. Romney failed to make positive headway by not following up on erroneous claims made against him; failed to be upfront about "the rest of the story" on his plans and the Ryan budget; and he tried to look/act like a regular guy and failed, rather than trying to present a positive image of a successful rich guy who is a decent human being. Instead of the clueless WASP he looked like.

What was the "rest of the story" with his budget plan? Saving an extra 2-3% is not convincing enough to change the bedsheets. I don't think it was his "wasp"iness as much as his smugness. But that was apparent in the primaries. Why didn't Republican voters consider it then? "He looks oh so presidential--even a little like Reagan!! Why that's surely a winner!"

georgeatkins wrote:5. The Republican Platform dooms itself by continuing to take water for the Religious Right, rather than stuffing them back into a corner where they belong. Pushing agenda items that sound like they came from an Iranian imam or medieval pope just isn't what this nation needs. Most everybody enjoys a little religion in their lives, but continuing attempts to break down the so-called separation of Church and State (except when it comes time to collect taxes, of course) by amending State and US constitutions, for example, is not what our country needs. Romney had the decency, at least, to keep his religion and religious works in the background. Too bad that he did not do the same with the Republican platform he ran on. After all, who else will the "Religious Right" vote for, anyway? A Liberal, Godless Democrat? In the past, Republicans used to either ignore them or just give them lip service at their prayer meetings. Candidates still got their votes. That's all they are good for, anyway.

I agree with this whole-heartedly, but the primary season was all about that. I think they chose Romney because he catered enough to the Taliban, without being one himself. But that plan backfired. Allowing idiotic candidates mouth off about rape, and why it's not a legitimate reason for abortion, didn't help. It wasn't just Romney that lost--it was the entire party. In an election with only 10 Republican senate seats up, they should have taken the majority. They failed.

On the flip-side, I don't think Romney's Mormonism helped. Mormons are those nice people that you trust from a distance. Yeah, I know about Howard Hughes, but employing Mormons is different from trusting them with your government--especially when their views are far more extreme (as pertains to the "city on the hill", America worship) than even the most dispensationalist Christian.

georgeatkins wrote:6. The Republicans suffered greatly because they let the Democrats define them and thus, did little to correct or clarify the characterizations. Who knows, maybe the Republican Party is so clueless, so lacking in intellectual depth and theory (i.e. Democrats), that they just don't know how to handle a National Election any longer. Romney SHOULD have won, based on Obama's record and the current conditions. That he could not simply underscores how inept he and the Party have become. Like the Minnesota Vikings, for example.

I think they let the Republicans define themselves. The country used to be much more anti-abortion than it is now. Heck, with the economy the way it is, and the endless wars abroad, abortion is a red herring. Republicans are the ones that mouthed off.

Romney shouldn't have won, but any other reasonable candidate could have. Romney was far too similar to Obama. I know, his healthcare mandate was on a state level. But Romney said that he likes the mandates, and he is no federalist. Romney was pro-tarp. Romney believes in more war than Obama. There was not one reason to vote for him that wasn't "he's not Obama," and that's no reason to elect a president.

One of my friends was a Romney supporter up until about a month ago. His main argument was that Romney was a businessman. So what? When I explained that his business experience is hogwash, he became a Johnson supporter. Romney got jobs due to connections. Who gets out of college and into a large firm as he did? Connected people. Don't get me wrong, sometimes unconnected people do, but when you've got a Governor for a father, things happen. From there, his business experience was technocratic. That's nothing compared to Johnson's business experience. Johnson started a 1-man handyman business in college and grew it into a large construction business, employing over 1,000 people in the state of New Mexico.

Had Johnson or Paul been the candidate, Obama would be packing his bags right now.

But thanks, docile Republicans. They shoved "the next guy" down your throat and you took it. Nobody looks good whilst gagging.

Sassenach wrote:I'm not sure it's true to say that America is becoming more left. A Republican running on a fiscal hawk ticket but without any of the cultural baggage could easily have won this election, and there are still lots of them out there. I think what we'll see come out of this election is a realisation that social conservatism is no longer the election-winning force it once was. It'll take time for that to filter into candidate selection in the Republican Party but it will happen in the end. To some extent that has already happened. By all accounts the Republicans in Michigan all try their hardest to avoid touching on things like abortion and concentrate solely on bread and butter issues. Granted, that's a very blue state, but it's an easy template to replicate and we'll gradually see more states starting to do it.

When it comes to the crunch what the last two elections have amply demonstrated is that the religious right has nowhere else to go and can be relied on to vote Republican anyway. They despised both McCain and Romney but still voted for them. They don't especially need to be pandered to. Their bluff can be called, and I think it will be eventually.

I believe that you are correct on both accounts. The country is becoming more libertarian. The amount of people that held their nose while voting Romney was astounding to me. If you look at the areas where the so-called left wing policies are growing, it's mostly about civil liberties. Sure, there will always be people who want their handouts, but I don't see that number as growing. None of my left-wing friends are hooting and hollaring about healthcare mandates. Even those who want a single payer system are unhappy about the mandate. Hey guys, let's get excited that we're now forced to pay insurance companies...



"Let's beat Obama!" did just as well as "Let's beat Bush!"


You're also right about the religious right. Another person I know is one of them. He was most certainly not voting FOR Romney, but against Obama. He's a single-issue voter (abortion). As a government employee for 25 years, he doesn't care about deficits. He is clueless about the economy. He's not particularly pro or anti-war (irony alert). He just thinks that his vote for president should be based on something the presidency has no effect on. The only way to federally ban abortion at this rate is through a constitutional amendment. That has nothing to do with the presidency.

Sassenach wrote:...Michigan... Granted, that's a very blue state

Sidebar: That's a bit misleading: Michigan leans blue, but it's really a pretty balanced state. Metro Detroit and some other areas (mainly in the SE) are heavily Democrat, but outstate, including Grand Rapids, is equally heavily Republican. Michigan's statehouse is Republican, and it has had plenty of Republican governors (George Romney included). It's congressional delegation is majority Republican, although it's true that both Senators are currently Democrats (statewide it does lean blue). At the Presidential level it has often gone Republican. The fact that it has gone Democrat in the last several elections has as much to say about the quality of the Republican candidates as the nature of the state, in my opinion. In this election, despite Romney's family history with the state, his 'let Detroit fail' viewpoint from 2008 was an absolute killer. Disclosure: Yes, I'm a Michigander.

Sassenach wrote:I'm not sure it's true to say that America is becoming more left. A Republican running on a fiscal hawk ticket but without any of the cultural baggage could easily have won this election, and there are still lots of them out there.

I also agree with this. My home county is a perfect example. It voted for Obama by 50%. However, if voted for the incumbemt Congress by 56%. He is a prolife Republican who does not campaign on that. He campaigns completely on fiscal conservativism.

Ditto everything George said above!!

sass

I'm not sure it's true to say that America is becoming more left. A Republican running on a fiscal hawk ticket but without any of the cultural baggage could easily have won this election, and there are still lots of them out there. I think what we'll see come out of this election is a realisation that social conservatism is no longer the election-winning force it once was

If you take social conservatism away ...if social conservatism isn't part of wha defines a conservative in the US ...you've changed conservatism. Acceptance or at least toleration of things like gay marriage, and womens right to choose .... make it socially liberal.
Both of these issues were litmus tests during the Republican primaries. At its the endless primaries that largely define the nature of the party.
That many think that social conservatism was the reason Republicans didn't win .... Means that the nation has moved over the Rubicon on these defining issues....
Reference to recent referendum and polls on attitudes to gay marriage, and right to choose supports the notion that evolution on these ideas has moved far enough to suggest that the liberal side (if there has to be only two sides) is larger...

I don't think it's necessary (or indeed realistic) for the Republicans to move across and start to endorse things like gay marriage or abortion. All that's required is for them to accept that it will not be possible going forward to legislate them out of existence and drop the issue. Yes, that would represent a change, but it's one that plenty of conservatives would be comfortable with and many have already made.

sass

Yes, that would represent a change, but it's one that plenty of conservatives would be comfortable with and many have already made.

I'm sure thats true. However, I also suspect the numbers aren't compelling. The religious right still holds sway in many states, and in the republican PArty. The ability to win the republican primary is dependent upon their support. The vore in large numbers and represent upwards of more than half republican primary voters in particular states.
The day someone can run for the Presidential nomination and say, "I personally oppose abortion but I understand that the law provides women the individual right to choose to end a pregnanacy before the second trimester of a pregnanacy. AndI don't think the country will accept a change to that law ..."
Then your party has changed. Till then its held hostage by fundamentalists.
The otehr probelm is that there is a conservative media bubble that republicans live within. How many strive to get past Fox news or right wing radio and examine views different then theirs? Or worse, be exposed to information that hasn't been filtered by their choices for information.
Studes have shown FOX television viewers to be horribly misinformed... Notice how socked they all are at the results of the election????

When religionists like Jindal pave the way for public funding of religious schools teaching creationism .... you've got a significant minority who are loosing the ability to think critically.
And they are republican primary voters too...