It will be because of racism. basso has informed us on many occasions that the only reason why steele lost in 2006 was "democratic racism." Accordingly his loss now will be due to racism. Sorry but you can't lead a regional party made up of southern whites if you're black.
On a similar vein, the death of the "southern strategy" and the likely non-relevance of the South in electing future presidents. The Obama/Biden ticket was the ultimate repudiation of the old strategy. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11south.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin Check out these amazing graphics comparing 2008 to 2004. Very ominous trend for the GOP. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/05/us/politics/20081104_ELECTION_RECAP.html Finally, check out David Brooks' opinion on how he feels the GOP is likely to react. If he's right, they will be in the wilderness for quite some time. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/opinion/11brooks.html?em ...Finally, Traditionalists own the conservative mythology. Members of the conservative Old Guard see themselves as members of a small, heroic movement marching bravely from the Heartland into belly of the liberal elite. In this narrative, anybody who deviates toward the center, who departs from established doctrine, is a coward, and a sellout. This narrative happens to be mostly bogus at this point. Most professional conservatives are lifelong Washingtonians who live comfortably as organization heads, lobbyists and publicists. Their supposed heroism consists of living inside the large conservative cocoon and telling each other things they already agree with. But this embattled-movement mythology provides a rationale for crushing dissent, purging deviationists and enforcing doctrinal purity. It has allowed the old leaders to define who is a true conservative and who is not. It has enabled them to maintain control of (an ever more rigid) movement. In short, the Republican Party will probably veer right in the years ahead, and suffer more defeats...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5cSWudmeYDg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5cSWudmeYDg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Yep...so regionalized to the south...Utah...Nebraska...Missouri...I forgot that all of those places are all part of the south. It would be as accurate to say that the Dems are regionalized to the far west and the northeast. In fact, there are membership groups of each party in all states.
He is a republican. I could care less what color he is. The only republican I would vote for is Bobby Jindal, and Ron Paul if he wasn't so crazy.If Obama does a pretty good job, and it not going to matter who you guys run, he won't be able to beat Obama.
Your right, He won't be able to carry west Mississppi, Virginia, Kentucky ect, and you can kiss the black vote good bye just because he is a republican. He might be able to steal a few percentage points away from the democrats from the black vote, but nothing significant. As long as the republicans have Walton and Johnson, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Hannity spreading hate all of the radio, I doubt blacks will take a serious look at the G.O.P.The Katrina debacle didn’t help and probably damaged the G.O.P brand for a number of elections. It's good though the G.O.P has finally discovered black people again. But not like it will matter.
I dunno I think the GOp will do anything to get votes. I doubt they seriously give a crap about racism if their party could be in power. Power and money trump racism in pretty much anybody.
If Steele heads the RNC, I'll bet he makes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton board members as well, right? After all, weren't they going to be cabinet members after an Obama victory?
Walton and Johnson? I'm sure people really take them about as seriously as Dean and Rog on political issues. Seeing that Louisiana went for McCain this election and that they have a Republican Gov, the people in Louisiana don't seem to mind the GOP.
You can add Texas right along with that. There are people who take Walton and Johnson serious trust me.I work with a few of them and I am surprised how they let talk radio brain wash them.
Look at the election map....you think I invented this observation? LOL. Dude, have you been living under a rock? You do know who is president-elect right? You do know that the upper midwest - thought to be a swing state belt, is now solid blue, that the capital of the confederacy voted for a democrat, and that the southwest and non-mormonized west (the populous parts) are turning blue? The stats are pretty telling and the demographic trends are going one way - here is the bluing areas of the country versus the reddening areas: I will let Nate Silver break down the rest for you:
Sam, THIS map says more about our political state than the electoral map. Basically Obama improved in (I think) every single demographic across the board over Kerry, except for white, non-college educated voters in AR, LA, KY & TN. When I look at my home state of Indiana and see the dark blue trend, it's unbelievable. 34% of whites in Indiana voted for Kerry while 45% voted for Obama. Times are a changing.
I think the trend that's most ignored is the concept of a solid democratic southwest. With a growing Hispanic populace - I wouldn't be surprised of Nev-Ariz-NM-Col begin to follow Cal and the PNW more and more. McCain skewed the results this time around being from AZ - had he been from another region I think Obama would have either won Arizona or made it incredibly close - say 1% or so.
Has anyone looked at the actual performance of Michael Steele? The grassroots right did, and here's what they found: http://www.thenextright.com/michaelturk/the-race-for-chairman-comparing-the-pacs It's no surprise that I am a big believer in Fred Thompson. I was making the case for Fred several months before getting involved with his campaign. He is a stalwart supporter of the principles of the party - small government, personal responsibility, Federalism, and traditional values. In looking at the race for RNC Chair, count me among the many voices who have made the argument that Fred should be our guy. As General Chairman of the party, he would be fantastic. He is solid on principles, good on camera and able to articulate our party's message in a way that resonates with real people, and firmly committed to electing solid conservatives. It's that last point that leads me to write this post. I have heard a number of people talking up Michael Steele as a potential party chair. While I think Steele is an appealing candidate with a great narrative (I love that he used to be a monk), I have to judge him on performance leading an organization like the RNC. Steele has, most recently, been the Chairman of GOPAC. If that name is familiar, it's because of the tremendous role it played in the '94 revolution. It was once a powerhouse in GOP campaigns. It provided candidate training nationwide and recruited some great candidates. Under Michael Steele, as of October 15, GOPAC had raised a whopping $77,135 this year. Of that, it gave just over $29,000 to candidates - with $5,000 of that going to Steele's own campaign in Maryland. By comparison, Fred Thompson launched FredPAC at the beginning of September - just 60 days before the election. In that 60 days, Fred contributed $42,000 to candidates, recorded ads and robo-calls for GOP candidates, and criss-crossed the country trying to elect Republicans and the McCain-Palin ticket. In trying to answer the question "Who is better able to rebuild the party, raise money, and actively campaign for our candidates?" I think we need to look at what the candidates have done to actually help candidates. Given that Steele raised very little, contributed very little, and took 17% for himself, I'm just not sure he's the best guy to dig us out of this particular hole.
Too bad Thompson won't lift a finger to campaign for himself. The thought of a black RNC chair and Palin leading the Republicans in '12 makes me smirk. Not the intellectual realignment I was hoping for from an Obama win. More like surgery as botched as Tara Reid's breasts.
Love the fact that even post-McCain Palin loss - one of the GOP metrics is # of robo-calls recorded.....lol. Welcome to the wilderness guys...why don't you take your shoes off, set a spell.....
