Are the Republicans losing their national party status?

As noted in this article just a few years ago people were seriously talking about the Democrats not being a national party. The two major parties have survived for this long because they are adaptable. The Republicans are far from being trapped in the South and even if they were they wouldn't stay their for long. If the Republicans suffer the string of defeats the Democrats had in the past 12 years they would be looking to retool their message and its just as likely the Democrats would create a disaster of their own doing by becoming arrogant and complacent.

Also remember in the past 42 years death knells have been written for the Republican party 3 times previously. In 1964, 1974 and 1992. Each of those times the party came back and I would figure now would be no different.

 

Even though I was fully aware of this guy's campaign and victory, I still did a double take when I read this quote. I still remember watching this guy's highlight reels during the '94 draft, wondering if he or Marshall Faulk would win a Super Bowl first, then seeing him flameout in the NFL (despite finagling multi-million dollar deals from both the 'Skins and the Saints, from Super Bowl winning coaches, no less). Talk about making lemons out of lemonade, kind of like Magic Johnson founding and running a $700 million company.

Incidentally, political parties are alot like television networks, in that from one year to the next, you can never predict who'll be ahead (remember when Who Wants to be a Millionaire was the highest ratest show on television? The year before it was ER, a year later it was Survivor). They have multiple projects in the iron, but their strength lies in their ability to promote and duplicate the one or two ideas (or candidates) that the public actually ends up liking.

 

The Republicans will eventually morph into whatever it takes to succeed. Neither party will be dieing soon no matter how bad they do in the most recent election. This is just silly talk.

What actually could happen is if the GOP turns more to their "base" in 2008 they could get clobbered severely and be locked out of both houses of Congress for a while. But whether in 2008, 2010 or 2012, they will right the ship and dump some parts of their platform that keep them out of power.

 

Yes. With any luck, the current ruling junta that has taken over the Republican Party will be confined and people who want the Republican Party to stand for something other than an anti-Constitutional Torture State will take their party back.

 

I hope the GOP becomes a more centrist, moderate party, as opposed to the extremist creature, in my opinion, that has been created by the leadership, including, of course, the Administration. Those who gave the GOP power, in one form, or another, the Reagan Republicans (AKA Reagan Democrats), have finally figured out that party is no more. They came to the Democratic Party in droves, or stayed home. After wandering in the wilderness for a while, I expect a new group to gain control, and with any luck, they'll be nothing like the current one.

Losing this past election, in the long run, will be the best thing to happen to the GOP in a very long time. And for the country.



D&D. Wear Clean Socks.

 

I think it could be interesting if the opposite of these predictions happen. The whole idea that the Republicans are in trouble going forward is based on the assumption that America is going to be happy with the Democrats 2 years from now. What if this victory is short lived (several seats were won based on scandals, for example, and could swing back with new candidates)? If the Republicans take the presidency and one or both houses of congress in 2008, what would that portend for the Democrats? Can they only win when they are running a midterm election against the party of president with historic unpopularity in the middle of an equally unpopular war started by same party? Even in winning this time, the Dems bright stars were the people that skewed to the right, as mentioned in the article.

With these questions in mind, I think it would be a mistake for the Republicans to try to shift to the left to recover from this defeat. It is entirely possible for them to win as they did in 2004, just because the spectre of Bush won't be hanging over them any more, nor are they all corrupt and cybering with pages (hopefully).

 

I hope a lot of Republicans think like you. Run hard to the right and please those social conservatives boys! Pander to them Evangelicals!

 

I hope a lot of Republicans think like you. Run hard to the right and please those social conservatives boys! Pander to them Evangelicals! If you don't want the center or independents we wil gladly take them.

 

If this means anything to you, evangelicals are deserting the GOP in droves. You are equating evangelicals to the Religious Right. They are NOT the same. You should consider the RR a narrow ultra-politicized segment of evangelicals.

 

The only reason the GOP won in 04 was because they were ultra-nasty & vicious and Kerry was pathetic. The Dems were soft and got their bell rung.

In 08, the GOP has almost no chance to get the Senate unless they have a landslide. If the election is competitive, the Dems will definitely gain seats. IMO, this is almost not even debatable. If you look at the result in 04, George Bush thought he had "political capital" to spend. He was grossly mistaken and the GOP had no mandate to do anything other than hang on for dear life.

I doubt the voting public becomes enamored with the Dems the next 2 years. Even so, they could still sweep in 08. The key question for both parties is their presidential nominee. That will determine where each side is headed. Until then, it's hard to say what the GOP will do. One thing for sure is the hard right will have less influence. How much less is to be determined. If the Dems put up a stiff similar to Kerry who cannot counterpunch and delivery hard blows in return, the 04 strategy may work one last time. But I don't think that will happen.

 

So premature to write-off the republican party. Hopefully this will force the republicans to moderate a bit - move to the center and become more of a true conservative party but loosen up a bit on the social agenda.

I mean, the republicans were in total control of gov't - all the democrats did was capitalize on an unpopular president during an unpopular war. I doubt what we are seeing is any kind of long term trend.

However; the Republicans need to move away from the whole "party of god" message and trying to stake the moral high-ground. Clearly they have come across as hypocrits in this area - but then again - they recovered from Nixon.

What's more impressive is how many conservative democrats got elected. I think it would behoove democrats to move away from the ultra liberals as much as it would for the repubs to move away from their zealots.

Most of America is a moderate state - until there's a moderate political party - let's hope the two parties remember who has the ability to swing power.

 

Sure. All the Democratic Party did was toss some names on the ballot and win, because Bush and the Republican Congressional leadership were incompetent and extreme. (my words) All anyone needed to do was have a "D" by their name and it was smooth sailing.

Don't you think the national Democratic campaign deserves a little credit? Not only that, but I disagree about what it means long term. In 1980 there was a fundamental shift in perception among the general public towards the two parties. A whole hell of a lot of conservative and moderate Democrats started voting Republican. The Reagan Republicans. The Carter Administration's handling of the Iran Hostage Affair was the tipping point, in my opinion, but it was also because people were ready for a change. They got it. Now, they feel that the GOP has become extreme, dangerous, and incompetent. Bush is even worse as President than Carter was. I admire Carter as an ex-President, and as a man, but I was grinding my teeth while he was in office, and I'm a Democrat myself.

Today, things are swinging the other way. The general public, in the main, are fed up with the party in power, and with their foreign and domestic "policies." They're ready again for a change, and this midterm victory by the Democrats is only the beginning, just as 1980 was only a beginning for the GOP in it's march towards political dominance, a dominance that is coming to an end, thank god. As A_3PO pointed out, '08 is looking especially grim for the GOP in the Senate. Far more Republicans are running than Democrats. It's at that point in the cycle. If a strong Democratic Presidential candidate runs in the next election, and I think one will, seats will be picked up by the Democrats in the House, as well. In my opinion.

I know there are a lot of fans of divided government here, and I certainly see the advantages. I just happen to believe that we'll see a swing towards Democratic dominance, as the Party becomes more moderate, progressive, and centrist. That's a good thing. I'm more to the left, personally, but I want my political party to win elections. So sue me! The way the Democrats will keep winning elections is to put paid to the BS Rove/Bush/Cheney and the GOP have been spewing these last several years. Prove they are a strong, governing party. If it turns out that they overreach, then we'll probably see a shift, most likely in the House. But not for a while. And not until the GOP is seen again as a political party worthy of trust. Right now, the leadership of that party doesn't deserve any. And they will continue to pay for it for some time to come.



D&D. You Get what You Get.

 

While you're right that the election was a referendum on Bush and not an endorsement of Democrats, this here is a myth -- propogated by the media and happily repeated by people that don't pay close attention.

Far be it from me to pretend to understand the contemporary definition of "conservative" since it has changed so drastically under Bush that many traditionally conservative issues (less intrusive, less powerful government; balanced budget, etc.) have clearly become the province of the Democratic party. But under any definition of "conservative" imaginable, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse and Claire McCaskill do not fit the bill. Jon Tester and Jim Webb do in some ways, yes. They are what one might call traditional conservative Democrats. But they are also extreme opponents of the stupid, failed Iraq war and Tester would like to repeal the Patriot Act. And Bob Casey is only called conservative because he is pro-life. Apart from that he is a died in the wool Democrat. Those six people account for the entire Dem field that won Senate seats. The most notable one that lost was Harold Ford who was more conservative than any of them.

Yes, Webb worked for Reagan, voted for Bush and once endorsed Allen. Yes, Casey is pro-life. Yes, Tester has a crewcut. But apart from that, these three guys adhere pretty strictly to the Dem platform. And the other three are flat out liberals. Conventional wisdom makes good copy but it's often wrong. It is here.

Americans don't vote for fence straddlers. They vote for people they like and trust whom they believe have the strength of their convictions. That's why they voted Bush in the numbers they did in two elections. The exception to the rule is when an elected official ****s up so incredibly badly that they are forced to pay attention to issues. That's what happened in 06. In 08 we'll be back to the usual game, with one caveat: if McCain is the GOP nominee and the war continues and continues to be the unimagineable debacle it is now or even, amazingly, gets worse, he will have to answer for his continued support of it. If Hillary Clinton is the Dem nominee she will have similar problems. But if Obama decides to run and doesn't implode due to some unforeseen thing, he will win decisively, as he should, according to those old rules of American politics which, sadly, have virtually nothing at all to do with ideology let alone issues. And that would be A-OK with me, given that he is a progressive, that he is on the right side of the war and has been from the start, that he is right on every other issue, that he is an inspirational speaker -- even a philosopher -- and, most importantly, that he is a true believer.

Obama '08. I can't wait.

 

Batman, do you believe that Balack Osama can beat Hillary in the primary?

I personally do not think so. If I am right, the Republicans will benefit from a poor primary choice by the libs, just as they did in 2004. Wesley Clark probably would have had the best chance to defeat Bush in the general election. Kerry was too easy of a target, and ultimately fell to the Swifties' attack. Hillary is an even bigger target than Kerry. There is not a doubt in my mind that the Republicans can mount another Swifty-style attack on her and bring her to her knees -- a position she is very unfamiliar with.

HO HO HO

 

Hey, Retro! Good to see ya! I noticed you didn't blame the Iraq debacle on the media or liberals and that you failed to say how we love to hate America and love to love Bin Laden... You're slipping, Retro! Maybe on your next post.

I don't think Hillary will be the nominee. Not for the reasons you mentioned, as you are without exception always wrong about politics -- Hillary's been bashed by the GOP slime machine as badly as anyone in the field with the possible exception of Kerry -- but because she has only three things going for her and two disappear with Obama in the race. The first is that she's a giant celebrity, the annointed front-runner. That's wiped out with an entrance by either Obama or Gore. The second is that she's a woman and all the excitement surrounding a first woman president. That's also wiped out by Obama as, potentially, the first black one. The third is her name, which is as much a negative as a plus as the electorate is, thanks to Bush's unprecedented failure of a presidency, becoming very weary of legacy names in the White House. The plus, of course, is that her name reminds the country that we enjoyed a time of peace and prosperity under the last grown up to hold the office.

But apart from that, she doesn't have much going for her. She blew all her money in a show of power during the last cycle against a zero candidate, which was a huge mistake and will make her donors reticent. And she has a serious Iraq problem. She miscalculated badly there as did Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt before their 04 races.

Obama doesn't have any of those problems. His only problem is that his last name sounds like Osama and his middle name is Hussein. I know that candidates names are of enormous import to you, but the average American voter, while generally dumb, is enormously smarter than you are and tends to vote on things other than the names given the candidates by their parents. Anything else you want to slime Obama with while we're here? He smoked pot and did coke when he was younger and he actually admitted it, unlike Bush. Also he still smokes cigarettes. Maybe you can work with some of that.

 

Trader_J, improving your spelling clearly wasn't a priority during your hiatus.



D&D. Don't have a Dictionary? Get One!

 

That's more like a traditional conservative viewpoint than a liberal viewpoint.

 

Didn't notice the "Balack Osama" thing the first time around. Or rather, I did, but I didn't notice the "Balack" part. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't pull out racist crap here. Or, rather, I thought you'd confine it to your bigotry against Muslims and leave black people alone. I was wrong. Shame on you.

 

Except that Hillary Clinton is far smarter, tougher and meaner than Kerry. Hillary Clinton's not going to fall for a Swift Boating and if its Hillary vs. McCain or Giuliani I wouldn't be surprised to see a Swift boating of them.