GOP Purge Inevitable?

southsiderosie

I may have egg on my face tomorrow for starting this now but...

I have to wonder if the GOP isn't going to purge itself of its far-right extremists after this election cycle. They have essentially cost the GOP the senate - Indiana and Missouri should have been relatively easy pick-ups if the nominees had not been such social extremists. And it is hard to see how the national party didn't drag Scott Brown with it.

Will the party shift more to the center? Or will the 'not conservative enough' brigade win out? Unless more Republicans are willing to give the two fingers to pundits and Grover Norquist, I can't see that happening, but if they are smart, the Jeb Bush/Chris Christie wing of the party will take over after this election cycle.

matthew8

It didn't happen in 2010, it won't happen now.

Brian?

I'm going to say no. They will hold the house and about 32-33 Governerships. They will be within 2% of the presidency. Where will they see the problem?

Corkfeen

I could actually see the more moderate members of the republicans either going independent or forming a new party(who knows maybe the two party system will move to 3 ). There has to be issues within the party over the fact that such hardline stances are becoming commonplace....

sink

I would also say no. They're more likely to go further right before the inevitable dawns on them. The hard right will push their opinion that Romney was too soft and they will dig their heals in.

20Cent

I think they will have to move towards the centre. The extreme wing blew the presidency for them. Far too divisive, if they spend the next four years trying to block everything Obama wants to do moderates will lose patience with them. The economy will improve, the benefits of Obamacare will have kicked in, also the demographics will have changed.

Coriolanus

Cant see it happening myself. The parts of the party responsible for putting the outliers onto the voting ballot are the parts least likely to take a sober look at the policies that led them into this position. This isn't a terrible night so far. It's more a maintenance of the status quo. Presuming Obama wins and it's looking like he will and the house and senate are going to be in the same hands, the extremists have four more years of gerrymandering and interference running to look forward to.

Stheno

How would that work for the GOP though particularly in the Southern states?

Would it not be seen as a laying down of arms so to speak?

Brian?

GOP in a microcosm: Sarah Palin talking about how Obama has no clear mandate if he only wins by a slight margin. That's what the GOP will take away tonight: Obama has no real mandate, they'll take back the White House next time because people will realise they were wrong.

Duck Soup

They can't. The grassroots - the activists, the primary voters - has been taken over by tea party-leaning members.

The Tea Party activists select the candidates, so they'll continue to put the wingnuts up for selection. They'd rather lose with a wingnut than win with a moderate.

They also believe at the presedential candidate level that the problem is that the Romneys of this world are not conservative enough.

What's really going to screw them in the future is the hardline the grassroots takes, and likes to encourage, on immigration. If the anecdotal reports of the Latino vote dropping from a high point of 40% in 2004 for Bush to about 25% this time round, whoever they choose is facing annihilation.

Stheno

Dunno if any of you have ever read any Richard North Patterson novels, to me the Tea Party are his novels and the behaviour of the right in the US in real life.

Duck Soup

Brian? wrote: »

GOP in a microcosm: Sarah Palin talking about how Obama has no clear mandate if he only wins by a slight margin. That's what the GOP will take away tonight: Obama has no real mandate, they'll take back the White House next time because people will realise they were wrong.

Also a justification in advance for continued bloody-minded and nihilistic obstructionism in Congress.

Brian?

Duck Soup wrote: »

Also a justification in advance for continued bloody-minded and nihilistic obstructionism in Congress.

Absolutely, it's so close to working that they're going to keep trying it.

Conas

GOP's obsession with foreign policy, and ignorance to other countries and how they operate is what will completely destroy them. The result of it all, has been very damaging to their image, reputation, and caused huge debt on the whole country.

sink

Conas wrote: »

GOP's obsession with foreign policy, and ignorance to other countries and how they operate is what will completely destroy them. The result of it all, has been very damaging to their image, reputation, and caused huge debt on the whole country.

I don't think many Americans realise how badly the Republicans are viewed internationally and many don't care. Foreign policy played only a secondary role in this election.

68Murph68

Duck Soup wrote: »

They can't. The grassroots - the activists, the primary voters - has been taken over by tea party-leaning members.

The Tea Party activists select the candidates, so they'll continue to put the wingnuts up for selection. They'd rather lose with a wingnut than win with a moderate.

They also believe at the presedential candidate level that the problem is that the Romneys of this world are not conservative enough.

What's really going to screw them in the future is the hardline the grassroots takes, and likes to encourage, on immigration. If the anecdotal reports of the Latino vote dropping from a high point of 40% in 2004 for Bush to about 25% this time round, whoever they choose is facing annihilation.

A key problem for them is the activists are the extremists and if they are actively stopping moderates from getting into the race.

Yup - the thing is that in a two party system appealing to the centre-ground is key.

The fact that you have so many people claiming Romney isnt conservative enough shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of logic.

How many votes was Romney going to pick up by being more conservative compared to being less conservative?

The floating voters are the ones who will decide a race, not the extremists.

From a demographic viewpoint the fact that Romney's vote was an older white vote which is going to be declining in the future, is not positive for their future prospects.

smellslikeshoes

Couldn't see it happening, assuming Obama wins tonight it will still end up being very close. A more likeable GOP candidate with less of the Bain capital and tax return type of baggage would have easily beaten Obama tonight.

sink

68Murph68 wrote: »

From a demographic viewpoint the fact that Romney's vote was an older white vote which is going to be declining in the future, is not positive for their future prospects.

Logic is not a strength of the hard right. Denying reality is kind of the modus operandi.

Conas

sink wrote: »

I don't think many Americans realise how badly the Republicans are viewed internationally and many don't care. Foreign policy played only a secondary role in this election.

Not true, most Americans have realised that their foreign policy in the middle is what helped destroy the economy and pile up the debt.

It wasn't the only thing I know, but wars do cost money. Romney beating the wars drums against Iran. Threatening to get tougher on Russia and China would scare anyone away from him.

America can't afford to be in the middle east now, and they can't afford to keep handing out Foreign Aid to other countries either.

matthew8

I hate to say it, but as long as they're AAA they can keep doing what they're doing.

southsiderosie

Seriously, if the GOP is so dysfunctional that they can't win back the White House given the state of the economy, they HAVE to make some changes. And their situation in the Senate is getting worse and worse as the night goes on.

matthew8

The economy's not that bad anymore.

poeticseraphim

southsiderosie wrote: »

I may have egg on my face tomorrow for starting this now but...

I have to wonder if the GOP isn't going to purge itself of its far-right extremists after this election cycle. They have essentially cost the GOP the senate - Indiana and Missouri should have been relatively easy pick-ups if the nominees had not been such social extremists. And it is hard to see how the national party didn't drag Scott Brown with it.

Will the party shift more to the center? Or will the 'not conservative enough' brigade win out? Unless more Republicans are willing to give the two fingers to pundits and Grover Norquist, I can't see that happening, but if they are smart, the Jeb Bush/Chris Christie wing of the party will take over after this election cycle.

It can't .....literally it can't ...it has no support in the centre....it really needs the far right ...Chris Christie did himself a favour by appearing reasonable and appearing to come together with Dems over sandy ...maybe he can save himself.

But the GOP has little traction with anyone but the far right ...it spat at women and minorities in this election.

The ones impassioned enough to campaign for the GOP ARE the extremists...

RGM

The problem is that they WILL win again. They'll shift just enough to make it work. They'll decide not to fight gay marriage anymore, for example, and whisper sweet nothings at enough Libertarians to keep things together.

The American government won't see any radical changes until they bring the place down on their heads.

Higher

I can actually see a Chris Christie-Condolozza Rice ticket doing very well.

Christie is extraordinarily likeable and Rice should be able to swing some of the minority votes back to the republicans

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

In one way you can say the the GOP need a root and branch reform but then again look at the result. 50-48 so not much at all in it, Obama just did enough in the swing states to see of the challenge to be honest Romney was not the greatest of candidates the GOP could have put forward. I mentioned before that candidates they put forward was very week.

They would be advised to drop their obsessions with morality and concentrate on being a fiscally responsible and conservative movement. They also need to reach out to Latinos more.

Expect a bloody nose in the mid terms for Obama in 2014 due to a lagging recovery and right ol battle Royale in 2016 between Hilary and whomever gets the GOP nod (Marco Rubio, Jebb Bush or Chris Christie?)

Obama will have his work cut for him and he has to perform a lot better in working with the GOP than his efforts in the first term.

Brussels Sprout

As others have mentioned a lot of the conservatists are now saying that that Romney wasn’t conservatist enough. So, in effect they are saying that if Romney had leaned further to the right then he would have got a few million more of the “base” out without alienating more than that number of the floating voters in the centre. This just doesn’t add up for me anyway.

What makes matters worse for the Republicans is that their core demographic of old white people is literally dying off to be replaced by young Hispanics for the most part. In 4 years time this is only going to be exacerbated.

If the Republicans want to have a chance of winning in the future, at a very minimum, they’ll have to revise their policies on immigration since this is alienating so much of the electorate.

Duck Soup

In the cold light of morning, it appears that the two groups Romney lost big were women and ethnic voters.

They're going to have to look at policies, not candidates, if they want to change that.

The current party platform and candidate positions on immigration, abortion/contraception, healthcare etc all need to be looked at. Unfortunately, I don't think they'll dig that deep, preferring to turn it into a Romney-kicking contest.

poeticseraphim

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They lost....they did not draw enough centrist votes the BBC said young voters and women made the difference.

Not all of them are the far right....but some are...and without the far right the GOP's numbers would be worse would you agree??

It is just like without minorities the DEM vote would be worse.

What i don't get is they are saying that he was not right enough..

Well where would these further to the right voters have come from??? They think leaning FURTHER to the right would have drawn voters who voted for Obama??

Obama got more votes. And he got them with democratic policy. The Gop demographic is shrinking. And they can't keep the libertarian contingency fooled for much longer. They must see they have to split to keep the integrity of their beliefs. The GOP is not even remotely libertarian. And it is turning the mainstream off. They would do well to break away now and run with the steam Ron Paul gave them.

In ordr to win the next election the GOP needs women .....badly...and what can it give them??

It does not understand the female vote....yes the economy is important but so is equality, contraception and abortion.

And to be honest they frightened a lot female voters this time around and angered them.

If leaning more to the right would bring the base out more that means th GOP has this idea of extreme rightists who are not political enough to get out and teapartiers would rather risk Obama winning than voting for the GOP. I don't know about you but i don't know any right extremists who stay home quietly on their views. The idea that the far right would risk keeping Obama and not vote for Romney is ludicrous and makes me wonder were some people watching the campaign.

You could not have tried to hold the far right back from voting this year. The ones who stayed at home are centrists who are disillusioned ..people who don't care ...I would say they are largely people who are not politically affiliated.

I don't actually see HOW you could get more far right than VP Ryan anyway.

poeticseraphim

Duck Soup wrote: »

In the cold light of morning, it appears that the two groups Romney lost big were women and ethnic voters.

They're going to have to look at policies, not candidates, if they want to change that.

The current party platform and candidate positions on immigration, abortion/contraception, healthcare etc all need to be looked at. Unfortunately, I don't think they'll dig that deep, preferring to turn it into a Romney-kicking contest.

Agreed.

Endless Nameless

I'd say they'll just tell GOP representatives to shut up about abortion altogether to stop alienating female voters, especially during election campaigns.

A lot of Romney supporters are blaming Gary Johnson supporters for the loss in Florida so they'll probably preach economic conservatism harder to squeeze out the Libertarian Party.

Either way, I doubt the Democrats will get a third consecutive term in 2016.

Duck Soup

Here's one set of statistics the GOP would do well to chew on.

In 2004, Bush won 44% of the Latino vote.

In 2008, McCain won 31% of the Latino vote.

Exit polls this time round suggest that Romney won 27% of the Latino vote.

They tried to squeeze one last win out of the Southern strategy, but unfortunately for them, the new southern strategy isn't dogwhistles to whites, but picking up more Latino votes in places like Florida. They really, really need to do some major policy shifts.

The one thing that struck me even before a vote had been cast was that the Romney campaign's outreach to Hispanics was pretty much non-existant.

FatherTed

Duck Soup wrote: »

Here's one set of statistics the GOP would do well to chew on.

In 2004, Bush won 44% of the Latino vote.

In 2008, McCain won 31% of the Latino vote.

Exit polls this time round suggest that Romney won 27% of the Latino vote.

They tried to squeeze one last win out of the Southern strategy, but unfortunately for them, the new southern strategy isn't dogwhistles to whites, but picking up more Latino votes in places like Florida. They really, really need to do some major policy shifts.

The one thing that struck me even before a vote had been cast was that the Romney campaign's outreach to Hispanics was pretty much non-existant.

Also with the Latino vote growing more and more each election cycle, places like Florida will begin to become more blue. It's even predicted by 2020 that Texas will be competitive for the Dems. Point is that the Repubs have a decision to make - stick with their current "conservative" beliefs or come into the 21st century. Gotta love these interviews from a Romney rally:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY0M7IdNl7U

Duck Soup

Endless Nameless wrote: »

I'd say they'll just tell GOP representatives to shut up about abortion altogether to stop alienating female voters, especially during election campaigns.

A lot of Romney supporters are blaming Gary Johnson supporters for the loss in Florida so they'll probably preach economic conservatism harder to squeeze out the Libertarian Party.

Either way, I doubt the Democrats will get a third consecutive term in 2016.

There's an unspoken fact that politicians of both parties didn't like to trumpet (but has been fairly widely discussed here on Boards and elsewhere). According to most economists, the US economy will put on 12m jobs in the next 4 years.

With a rising global and domestic recovery, the US economy will add 12m jobs whether Obama is in charge, Romney is in charge, or Gary Busey is in charge. No wonder President Obama was smiling so broadly last night.

Obama will leave as the hero of two terms, not the villain of one term. He will leave the 2016 Democratic candidate an economy in rude good health. That's why Republicans and Democrats both knew the paramount importance of this election. Not because of their sagacity and policy prescriptions, but because they know the times the economic tide rises and falls.

That doesn't make it a lock for Democrats in 2016, but it makes for some damn favourable wind at their back to assist them.

Coriolanus

After speaking to a good few Republicans this morning so far, I've kind of come to the conclusion that a lot of them are like Irish Catholics, they don't like their policies, but every time they're asked about it they still claim to be one.
Literally, the amount of people that voted Republican that have told me that they don't agree with immigration, economic, womens issues etc policies of the GOP but readily admit to voting for them anyway, baffles me.

darjeeling

Duck Soup wrote: »

They tried to squeeze one last win out of the Southern strategy, but unfortunately for them, the new southern strategy isn't dogwhistles to whites, but picking up more Latino votes in places like Florida. They really, really need to do some major policy shifts.

The surprising thing is that Obama's vote held up or even improved across much of the old South this time. Outside of Utah, it was the eastern coalfields of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia where Romney got the biggest swings.



Link: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president

joseph brand

sink wrote: »

Logic is not a strength of the hard right. Denying reality is kind of the modus operandi.

Well, he does do well in the bible states and we know logic and religion are like oil and water.

The extremism of the Tea Party won't help the GOP in the future, considering the rise of Atheism in the US, especially among the youth. The Tea Party are like 'believers' on crack.

Through this whole election, I couldn't relate or have an ounce of respect for ANY Republicans, save Ron Paul. Steve Schmidt is another. He talks like he isn't crazy and he tends to make sense, occasionally.

joseph brand

Coriolanus wrote: »

After speaking to a good few Republicans this morning so far, I've kind of come to the conclusion that a lot of them are like Irish Catholics, they don't like their policies, but every time they're asked about it they still claim to be one.
Literally, the amount of people that voted Republican that have told me that they don't agree with immigration, economic, womens issues etc policies of the GOP but readily admit to voting for them anyway, baffles me.

I read posts from Republican voters who think they lost because, there weren't enough prayers said. Take a minute to digest that!

The only real platform the GOP were pushing ad nauseum was the "Oh this country's not performing as well as it should!"

A quick look at the reasons would reveal:
1. The GOP tanked the economy, then they slipped out the back door.
2. The GOP did nothing except try to obstruct any policies put forward by Obama, just so that they could blame him, come this election. Well it didn't work.

But the number of filibusters by Republicans has escalated, and they have been far more willing to use the tactic than their opponents. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/21/opinion/zelizer-congress-polarization/index.html

Memnoch

I'm going to shamelessly copy/paste a post from another forum that I think speaks incredibly eloquently about the GOP and those who support it.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7309835&postcount=17

Let’s get one thing clear right off the bat, Republicans: You didn’t lose because people didn’t ‘wake up’ in time, or because Black Panthers carjacked all the little white nanas on the way to the polling place. The UN didn’t shut down stations in Republican states, and HAARP didn't make that gust of wind push a tree limb on just your car. ACORN didn't replace your vote with a big piece of paper that just said “Obama” on it, and George Soros didn't do a Jedi mind trick and make all red blooded Ammuuuuricans tick the D box when they meant the R. Don’t be one of those people who complain about bad referees when it’s obvious their team choked. You lost because, quite simply, your candidate was horrible.
This isn’t the end of the world (except for Ted Nugent and his ilk); you can actually get through this. All you need to do is keep some tips in mind for next time.

1. Turn off Fox News. I know it pains you to think of it, but all of media is not in a massive conspiracy, with your beacon of light, Fox News, cutting through the lies. Look at Murdoch’s other media empires – he’s an opportunist. He saw a need for fear-based ‘reporting’ in the US, and he went with it. The over-coiffed people on the couch feeding you a steady diet of misinformation and paranoia? Not helping you. Coulter and O’Reilly are only on Fox because they need to shill their newest book; they have to be there – you don’t. Unplug the tv, get some fresh air.

2. Stop letting the lunatics run the asylum. Remember when ‘conservative’ meant ‘fiscally prudent and laissez-faire regarding social issues’? Yeah, no one else born after 1980 does either. From Ron Regan’s courting of the Religious right, to John McCain’s choice to open the floodgates of insanity in the form of Sarah Palin, intellectuals and moderates no longer run your party – extremists do. And the American public as a whole fear those extremists, and sent a message that they won’t put up with racist homophobe ignoramuses any longer. Good start getting rid of Akin, Murdouch, Walsh,and Brown, but you have more to go. Which brings us to our next point…

3. Quit the ignorance. From Santorum calling the President a ‘snob’ because he wanted all young adults to get an education, to Tea-party led school boards and districts white-washing textbooks to fit what they wished happened, versus what did, your party is likely to sink under the weight of its own stupidity. Stop being afraid of math, science, and numbers. Find your local librarian and ask her how to research primary resources. Don’t just rattle off what Breitbart or WorldNetDaily or Newsbusters or the Heritage Foundation says – look up the full text behind the sound bite. You’ll find yourself shocked by the results.

4. Tell your leaders that the buck stops here. Are you sick of political ads? Well, good luck, because they’ll be back in 1.5 years for the mid-term elections. Want to stop the rhetoric? Tell your senator, rep, council person, everyone, that you won’t vote for them again till they pass comprehensive campaign reform (this goes for all parties, by the way). Corporations are not people. Super PACs are not good. Politicians aren’t supposed to be run by lobbyists. Get the money out. And those who refuse? Get them out in the next election cycle.

And finally, because this will come up again in our nation…
5. Choose a candidate because you like them, not because you hate the other guy. Who happens to be black. Who, the minute he took the oath, magically became the focus of birthers and prominent ferret headwear collector Donald Trump, a massive movement of the Tea Party who just ‘happened’ to spring up to fight him (even though the things they yell about were things Bush did for eight years without a peep), and a Republican led effort to ensure he’d get nothing done (to quote Mitch McConnell : “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”). I’m not going to paint all of you with a racist brush, but I will say this – they did all of this, and still lost, because Americans got sick and tired of your divisiveness. And this goes for the next candidate, who may be disabled. Or gay. Or a woman.

Republicans, you better evolve. Now. Or spend a lot of Tuesday nights, sullenly staring at the tv, making excuses for your party.

I really think this cuts straight to the heart of the matter. I really feel sorry for GOP voters who are so misinformed, deceived and lied to.

Last night proved to me, a perpetual cynic, that truth CAN prevail. But 49% of the electorate still voted for Romney, and that's still pretty scary. But this is how democracy and progress works. We plod forwards, slowly, but we do plod forwards.

Duck Soup

Memnoch wrote: »

Last night proved to me, a perpetual cynic, that truth CAN prevail. But 49% of the electorate still voted for Romney, and that's still pretty scary. But this is how democracy and progress works. We plod forwards, slowly, but we do plod forwards.

What last night proved to me is that America has changed and the GOP hasn't. Marijuana was legalized in two states, four others voted for marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples.

Latino and ethnic minority voters were decisive in Florida and elsewhere. Romney lost Latino, African-American and Asian-American constituencies by 40%+ (African-Americans by 80%+).

America is growing more diverse, more secular, more tolerant and less religious. And it's not like they weren't told. Lindsay Graham said "We're not producing enough angry white men any more" and Jeb Bush warned that if they didn't make inroads into the non-white vote, they would stay perpetually in opposition.

But there are two fundamental problems.

Firstly, the only national strategy they have had for 40 years is Nixon's southern strategy, identifying themselves as the party of white Christians and the Democrats by extension as the party of everyone else. That used to be a strength; now it's a weakness.

Secondly, their party activists are now tea-partiers who claim to be solely concerned with fiscal conservatism and small government, but in reality bring with them all the traditional social conservatism. Think of their booing of the gay army serviceman during the primaries.

Moderates can't get through the district and state primary processes to face the electorate; the Akins and Mourdochs that make it through can't get elected. Presidential candidates have to swing so far right in the presidential nominee primaries that they're damaged goods for the general election.

As Andrew Sullivan has said, it turns out that Obama is the real American - tolerant, liberal and inclusive. The anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-science tea-partiers belong to an America that's vanishing with each passing year.

Manic Moran

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm going to shamelessly copy/paste a post from another forum that I think speaks incredibly eloquently about the GOP and those who support it.

No issues with points 1, 2, 3 or 5. 4, I think is naive to hope for and I don't agree with all of it anyway.

I'm reading the post-mortem on the only truly conservative site I'm on (a firearms board), the analysis is about 50-50 on double-down vs "for the love of God, stop alienating moderates/independents."

The Republican party really does need a split.

Mjollnir

Manic Moran wrote: »

No issues with points 1, 2, 3 or 5. 4, I think is naive to hope for and I don't agree with all of it anyway.

I'm reading the post-mortem on the only truly conservative site I'm on (a firearms board), the analysis is about 50-50 on double-down vs "for the love of God, stop alienating moderates/independents."

The Republican party really does need a split.

Until they throw out they fundamentalists, evangelicals and social conservatives, the GOP will be about as relevant to me as tits on an engine.

Barry Goldwater warned of exactly this same thing.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
--Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)

THAT, in totality, sums up the stance of the clowns the republicans need to boot.

RGM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Republican party really does need a split.

Despite being locked out of the debates and ignored completely by the media, and without an endorsement from Ron Paul, Gary Johnson still managed over a million votes.

Can't help but wonder if there's life there.

Memnoch

Duck Soup wrote: »

What last night proved to me is that America has changed and the GOP hasn't. Marijuana was legalized in two states, four others voted for marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples.

Latino and ethnic minority voters were decisive in Florida and elsewhere. Romney lost Latino, African-American and Asian-American constituencies by 40%+ (African-Americans by 80%+).

America is growing more diverse, more secular, more tolerant and less religious. And it's not like they weren't told. Lindsay Graham said "We're not producing enough angry white men any more" and Jeb Bush warned that if they didn't make inroads into the non-white vote, they would stay perpetually in opposition.

But there are two fundamental problems.

Firstly, the only national strategy they have had for 40 years is Nixon's southern strategy, identifying themselves as the party of white Christians and the Democrats by extension as the party of everyone else. That used to be a strength; now it's a weakness.

Secondly, their party activists are now tea-partiers who claim to be solely concerned with fiscal conservatism and small government, but in reality bring with them all the traditional social conservatism. Think of their booing of the gay army serviceman during the primaries.

Moderates can't get through the district and state primary processes to face the electorate; the Akins and Mourdochs that make it through can't get elected. Presidential candidates have to swing so far right in the presidential nominee primaries that they're damaged goods for the general election.

As Andrew Sullivan has said, it turns out that Obama is the real American - tolerant, liberal and inclusive. The anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-science tea-partiers belong to an America that's vanishing with each passing year.

It's kind of funny and strangely ironic. The thing that the far right were most afraid of, 'their country,' being overrun by non-whites and immigrants, has actually come to pass and was one of the main reasons Obama won the election.

Of course, America has ALWAYS been a country of immigrants. I guess multiculturalism does work after all.

joseph brand

The GOP and the Tea Party are analogous to an old man beating back the tide with his cane. The tide being progress.

Here's the 'best' of the Republican party:

Santorum said they'd never have the college elite, the educated, on their side. He almost said ni**er in a speech too.

Bachmann crouched angrily behind a bush at a gay pride rally.

Romney christened his dead father-in-law and believes that when HE dies, he's going to planet Kolob.

Gingrich left his wife when he discovered she had cancer and refused to pay child support. He's on his 3rd wife now I believe.

Todd Akin 'knows' all about legitimate rape and a woman's ability to shut down the reproductive process.

Richard Mourdock believes rape is a gift from god.

Rush Limbaugh thinks women who use the pill are sluts.

Sarah Palin thinks the Iraq/ Afghanistan invasion was 'god's war'.

Christine O'Donnell took a public stance against masturbation, calling it "sinful" and equating it with adultery.

Joe Walsh shamefully attacked veteran amputee Tammy Duckworth and like Gingrich, refused to pay child support.


Fox 'news', Trump and Ted Nugent are hatemongers, revelling in inflammatory rhetoric with phrases like 'The Obama Regime', 'Kenyan' and 'communist'.

Mjollnir

Duck Soup wrote: »

What last night proved to me is that America has changed and the GOP hasn't. Marijuana was legalized in two states, four others voted for marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples.

Latino and ethnic minority voters were decisive in Florida and elsewhere. Romney lost Latino, African-American and Asian-American constituencies by 40%+ (African-Americans by 80%+).

America is growing more diverse, more secular, more tolerant and less religious. And it's not like they weren't told. Lindsay Graham said "We're not producing enough angry white men any more" and Jeb Bush warned that if they didn't make inroads into the non-white vote, they would stay perpetually in opposition.

But there are two fundamental problems.

Firstly, the only national strategy they have had for 40 years is Nixon's southern strategy, identifying themselves as the party of white Christians and the Democrats by extension as the party of everyone else. That used to be a strength; now it's a weakness.

Secondly, their party activists are now tea-partiers who claim to be solely concerned with fiscal conservatism and small government, but in reality bring with them all the traditional social conservatism. Think of their booing of the gay army serviceman during the primaries.

Moderates can't get through the district and state primary processes to face the electorate; the Akins and Mourdochs that make it through can't get elected. Presidential candidates have to swing so far right in the presidential nominee primaries that they're damaged goods for the general election.

As Andrew Sullivan has said, it turns out that Obama is the real American - tolerant, liberal and inclusive. The anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-science tea-partiers belong to an America that's vanishing with each passing year.

That's so concise I'm going to borrow it to spread out on the Book of Face.

Well, well written, Duck.

hatrickpatrick

I'm always surprised such a split has not occurred long before now. Economic and social conservatism are utterly irreconcilable with eachother, logically speaking. You simply can't have a candidate attacking another party for their "big government" policies when it comes to the economy, while members of your own party are trying to restrict contraception and ban pornography on the internet. It doesn't work, and it makes the party look unbelievably stupid.

Romney must be quietly furious at his Republican counterparts for their constant gaffes regarding rape and pregnancy, for example. Apparently the majority of the women's vote went to Obama, surprise surprise.
The Republicans attack the left for restricting economic freedom, then ask the public to vote for candidates who would restrict personal and civil freedom instead. If I had to choose between the two I sure as hell know which freedom I'd hold on to more dearly.

The Tea Party is a movement which seems to be distinct from all the social BS, and what I would imagine is that sooner or later the Tea Party types will splinter and form a third party. This party would probably be too extreme in terms of economic libertarianism for most people, but it would then breed new movements of more moderate economic conservatism without all the "family values" stuff holding it back. That I could envisage becoming a very powerful force in American politics if it ever emerges.

jank

Some on these posts are a little OTT, you would swear that the GOP lost in a Reagan esque 84 landslide.
The GOP still control the house, they still have the vast majority of govenors in the country.

ALL polls say that there is a majority that want smaller government and no tax increases rather than large government and tax increases.

The next few months will be interesting in terms of Obamas promises, will he move to the left and talk about climate change and social justice or actually try and fix the deficit and government spending. If he does the former I don't see the Dems retaking the house for at least another 4 years if that.

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

Some on these posts are a little OTT, you would swear that the GOP lost in a Reagan esque 84 landslide.
The GOP still control the house, they still have the vast majority of govenors in the country.

ALL polls say that there is a majority that want smaller government and no tax increases rather than large government and tax increases.

The next few months will be interesting in terms of Obamas promises, will he move to the left and talk about climate change and social justice or actually try and fix the deficit and government spending. If he does the former I don't see the Dems retaking the house for at least another 4 years if that.

Climate change and social justice are not incompatible with fixing the deficit. You're wrong. Actually a majority of people either want tax increases on the rich or on everyone. Can't remember which of the hundred or so articles I've read over the last couple of days or maybe it was on the CNN election coverage but I definitely saw it. I was surprised as well. Overall it was something like 55-60% who favor some kind of tax increase.

Raphael

A republican split would be amazing - It would let the extreme side sit out on the far right, let the moderate side move into a comfortable centre right position where they can actually win votes off democrats, and maybe even break the the 2 party gridlock (A situation where both hypothetical right parties working together can pass something, or both hypothetical centre parties either). Might see myself voting CentreRepublican someday if that happens (Disclaimer - I'm Irish, but married to an American citizen, so may end up being IrishAmerican at some point)