Getty Images
A tidbit of history: after President Obama's win last night, Republican presidential candidates have now lost the national popular vote in five of the last six elections. The last time the GOP saw a streak like this was the FDR/Truman era.
As election results came in last night, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), the disappointed chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, "[I]t's clear that with our losses in the presidential race, and a number of key Senate races, we have a period of reflection and recalibration ahead for the Republican Party.... Clearly we have work to do in the weeks and months ahead."
Clearly.
To a very real degree, it's hard for Republicans to even know where to start with its structural problems. The nation is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse, and the GOP seems to be going out of its way to become whiter. Republicans seem to be discovering new ways to alienate women, while moving even further from the American mainstream on reproductive rights and women's health.
The GOP apparently isn't familiar with actuarial tables, either, choosing to be heavily reliant on older voters.
What's more, as of this morning, the party has no clear leader -- House Speaker John Boehner might qualify, though he's more inclined to take orders than give them -- and no real policy agenda except fighting tooth and nail to prevent millionaires from paying a little more in taxes. Even the party's generations-long advantage on national security appears to be gone.
When it comes to electoral considerations, Chris Cillizza accurately noted this morning that the Democratic "electoral vote ceiling" is now obviously higher than the GOP's, and without a successful effort to expand the Republican base, the party faces a real challenge when it comes to winning national elections.
Perhaps most importantly, the party wants to win but doesn't want to change.
President Obama will call for comprehensive immigration reform, and the GOP will still cry, "Amnesty!" Those within the party who suggest a culture-war "truce" are condemned for their heresy. Thanks in part to Grover Norquist, there aren't really any Republicans willing to suggest, "Maybe Clinton-era tax rates on millionaires wouldn't be the end of the world."
When it comes to the basic ideological directions of the near future, there isn't even anyone left in the party to push it towards the middle because centrist Republicans were deliberately driven from the GOP's ranks through a series of ugly and costly primaries.
I think some of the recent talk about an intra-party "civil war" is probably overblown -- it's homogeneous party filled with people who think exactly alike -- but if Republicans think their problems will go away in time, they're kidding themselves.
Leave a Comment:
NOTE FOR RACHEL: you are wonderful, you are good, and we will love you forever, but PLEASE OH PLEASE STOP USING AND ABUSING "in terms of" every third sentence!
Rachel doesn't write this blog. Steve Benen does.
I think wobbly ashes is referring to her broadcasts when she interviews folks. It does seem to be a bit of a verbal tic. I would love to hear it mixed up with some "with regard to's" or "in light of's" etc. Won't affect me from watching but it is a phenomenon just as beginning every interview response with "look, " for when they are making an excuse for something or "So, " when they are about to not really answer you question but want to be instructive none the less. Screw it, who am I to judge, my english sucks. BTW is that a Vienna Beef logo? Nummy.
Excellent Points, all
I think TRMS spends too much time formulating logical argues. In terms of my personal feelings anyway.
It ain't over 'til it's over.
Every public officeholder swears an oath of office. Ask yourself, 'What's the point of ANY additional pledge?' Follow the money.
Any officeholder who genuinely believes in representative government should have already publicly denounced the Teaparty/Taliban's efforts to disenfranchise Americans.
If you stood in line to vote, write your STATE legislators an invitation to the 21st century. Washington state voters had their ballots weeks before election day.
The Teaparty/Taliban are still afraid of women making decisions. (John 8:3-11)
Trickle down not only doesn't spur economic growth, it stifles it.
"Corporations are people" = "He with the most gold rules"
Actually, we've just learned that not only does he with the most gold NOT rule, he doesn't even win!
And, Rachel, please: it's "different FROM" not "different than"! :-)
Love you, dear.
Instead of critiquing how an article is written why not discuss the information that it contains. During the campaigns I saw more debates over one word than the specifics or foundation of topics. That being said, I do feel that the demographics of America is changing and the white population is in the minority in many cities.
Thank you...well put...
If your right, the Republican party is doomed. Sadly except for the Libertarians don't see a possible replacement on the horizon. I say sadly because the Libertarians are, by their very nature, disorganized and unable to reach more than a very small percentage of the electorate.
100 libertarians can all get along til one discovers how easy it is to snooker the other 99.
Of course, they're not quite as disorganized as anarchists. How's that old saying go? Anarchy's better than no government at all!
Got Enraged and Engaged:
Mooched the Vote 2012!
;-)
I had a very interesting conversation with one of the local Libertarian candidates at the polling place yesterday...he didn't like my questions much.
They basically centered around things like gun permits in relation to public safety and regulation of the banking industry...after a couple of minutes of not being able to come up with anything to solve the problems I pointed out he wandered off into the parking lot muttering something that ended in the words "Smart ass"
The GOP is merely a half beaten snake. Half beaten as Foch warned that Germany was at the close of WW I. Germany needed to be utterly defeated, rather than simply being fought to stalemate. If we follow our pattern in 2008, peace loving Dems will assume a gracious posture and disarm. Then the GOP will do as Machiavelli warns half beaten snakes always do- they will strike with ferocity the first chance they get. Let's not do 2010 all over again, OK?
If the GOP is doomed explain to me why we lost so many toss up House races. Tell me why Boehner still has a comfortable margin and why Pelosi is not House speaker.
Democrats opened their wallets and worked their heart and souls out in this campaign and what do we have to show for it? It is the status quo before the election.
Listen to Right wing Radio or Fox. These guys are unrepentant- look at what McConnell said about Obama's victory. He is not alone- they are talking as if they didn't just have their asses handed to them.
In the GOP lexicon, cooperation means that the President needs to cooperate by signing their bills, and submitting to their nomination preferences for the courts and regulatory agencies. Cooperation means submission. Compromise is for those who have no ideological principles, which in their mind is what democrats are and so what their necessary function is.
Their optimism about their position of power is not delusional. Say they tweak their positions so they openly court the hispanic and women's vote. Now take a look at the realities for the 2014 Congressional races. For example, drill down on the Senate. Lots of Dem seats are contestable but few GOP seats are. We need to put some of those deeply red Senate seats in play for 2014, and it won't be easy even if the Obama style of campaigning can be redeployed for the Senate races. Consider the list of GOP seats that are up in 2014: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming.
We should celebrate the victory that will safeguard the advances of the last four years, safeguard balance in the Supreme Court Justices, and that will allow us to move forward on unfinished business like passing of the Dream Act and the president's Jobs bill.
But we have to be realistic about a strategy that will return Congress to democratic hands so that we may proceed on the vital reforms that the GOP will oppose tooth and nail:
Bipartisan compromises are called for with the current elected leaders but we need not hide our intention to eject the GOP from power in Congress. What the democratic party needs to understand is that we must swiftly pivot from this victory and redeploy forces offensively and aggressively to the Congressional 2014 races. We need to treat them with the same determination we applied to defending the President.
Many Dems are peace loving and I respect that. Those warriors among us must step up and recognise this as merely the opening battle of open, no holds barred hyper partisan war on the Right wing and the plutocracy they defend. I mean a take-no-prisoners assaults on GOP House and Senate seats. The situation requires that we be relentless in this war to not just wound, but to annihilate GOP obstructionists. We cannot afford to go back to sleep and have the GOP come back as they did in 2010.
I think the GOP/Tea Party/Libertarians should consolidate into a single party. Their new logo could be of Three Introspective Chimps with their hands over their ears, eyes and mouths when it comes to, “ That was not me saying that ! “
Republicans controlled a lot more state houses after 2010 and that allowed them to redistrict their states in such a way to minimize Dems in red states. Dems did the same and in Illinois there were 4 Republican seats lost to the Dems. If Dems are going to be successful in recapturing the House, they will need to begin voter registration in many states as well as organizing in districts that are not safe for Republicans. It will mean Blue Dogs will have to be supported by Dems in order to win districts. But even with the Blue Dogs, Dems can control the agenda in the House and at least move some legislation that all Dems can agree on. The contentious issues will be difficult to deal with until Dems can come to a consensus. This means less progress on some issues, but at least some movement.
Regarding the Senate, Reid has indicated that he desires changes in the filibuster rules. Personally, Dems should take up the rules and outright abolish the filibuster and indefinite holds on appointees. That can hurt Dems in the future, but Republicans will be unable to restore those procedural devices because of the public reaction. It means Dem and Republican presidents can get votes on legislation and appointees regardless of how bad either may be. With that will come more transparency and accountability for the Senate and the president. The parties will not be willing to put up legislation for show or that does not have enough real support.
I have had two conversations with the Senator Elect from my state- Mazie Hirono on that very subject. Maybe she can talk some sense into her colleague Dan Inouye from my state who was one of the gang of 14 and a staunch supporter of fillibusters and other idiotic tools that allow a single senator to obstruct legislation secretly.
Mike, is there any chance that someone other than Reid would be elected majority leader?
Dick Durbin from Illinois is next in line in Dem leadership. But I don't see him challenging Reid because Durbin is not a person to rock the boat. If Reid is replaced it will be because the Dem caucus wants it and not because Durbin is making a power play. I don't see the Dem appetite for abolishing the filibuster and holds, but there is a lot of support for change. Reid said he regretted not going farther with rule changes in 2010 because McConnell assured him that the Republicans would not continue to abuse the procedures. McConnell lied and the Republicans need to be punished severely for the abuse of the rules. That calls for a radical change in the rules, total abolition of the procedures used to obstruct work. It will make Dems look good in the eyes of the voters because work will get done with less game playing.
Is no other maneuver plausible? I think Reid/Schumer/Durbin should step aside and say that the consequences of abuse of the fillibuster is that they will put Murray in the Majority Leader spot and the fillibuster and associated abused rules will be suspended for the following 2 year term.
The advantage of this highly unorthodox maneuver is that they can let Murray be the bad cop and run roughshod over McConnell's minority- through use of nuclear option temporary suspension of traditional rules when they are being abused. Committee assignments and other procedural actions are controlled as before by Reid, so the Dem males don't get their panties in a knot about Murray.
Is there any other plausible scenario for a rules change, or liberal use of the nuclear option to alter temporarily suspend rules when the GOP obstructs?
John, thanks your earlier post is exactly what I've been writing about (with less specifics). While I don't think that the Senate will remove the filibuster, I do believe that Harry Reid realizes that he's got to do something to stop the fragga-naggle nonsense that's been coming from the other side of the aisle.
But as citizens we all need to roll up our sleeves and start getting to work to force state/federal legislatures to return our democracy back to US! Just pick an issue and I'm sure that we can coalesce enough people around it to start doing something! Now is not the time to sit on our laurels and have a cumbya moment hoping that the GOTP will make nice! Now is the perfect time for action!
Reid and Dem Senators are the problem if they do not vote to aggressively reform the rules that were used for obstructionism in the last term. They will suffer the fate of Richard Lugar and will be eliminated in the Dem Primaries if they place their sense of personal power ahead of progressive goals.
Reid's reform is trimming about the edges- extremely modest:
I suspect that nibbling at the edges of the rules will not satisfy a good number of Dem senators. Reid needs to talk the Dems into the abolition of the procedures. It is a big step, but would restore public confidence in that body. That would leave all the obstruction to the House and put Republicans on the hot seat. Reid needs to stop worrying about the consequences for the future if Republicans control the White House and Senate. The procedures would be dead and the public will not tolerate their return.
The best thing they could do is meet in a garage, close the doors and windows real right, and turn on the ignition of the car there.
"Reflection" and "consideration" are things that require a brain to perform, something they lack.
I drive an electric car, it didn’t work. Got any other ideas ?
Twice in recent history the right has gotten righteously spanked and with sad faces say they have heard the voice of the people, and they promise to change, blah blah blah. They do not. Same shenanigans, same tired agenda (tax cuts, abortion, abortion, abortion), same name-calling and silliness and greed. Same religious drum beat, same lies. Well, for us "Christians", a tree is known by it's fruit, and that's some old, bitter, hateful, arrogant, crappy fruit you're trying to sell. I'm not buying, and more people are deciding not to, either. I don't expect things to change.
Wrong: Romney Only lost because he was not enough Of a
"Backwoods Bad Ass, who wants a Marriage like the bible says so....” I
mean a Marriage like King David, Like Solomon, with 700 wives and 300
concubines…..We the Backwoods Bad Asses of Amerika, will never compromise OUR
Principles…
Turns out Mitt's call for "Real Change" wasn't change for the country; it was change for the GOP. Cooler, right-center heads need to prevail and drive policy back toward the middle if they ever want to win again.
Cutting the Tea Party loose would be the best start I can think of. If the Tea Party is so certain of their own patriotism and rightness on issues, they should be able to stand on their own, right?
They can "prevail" and drive policy all they want to, the problem is that it will be a long time before I, for one, will ever trust that they're doing it for real and not just for appearances to sucker voters (as Willard tried and failed to do).
Got Enraged and Engaged:
Mooched the Vote 2012!
;-)
It is hard to fix something if you can't figure out what is broken.
The Republicans have been in their own echo chamber for so long it has become their proverbial endless rabbit hole that they keep falling deeper and deeper in to.
It will take a pretty radical re-writing of the Republican platform to gain back 'Real America', which had the temerity to change its demographics right underneath their noses.
Oh. And Grover Norquist has two working hands, so he can personally come and sign my pasty pale butt. ;)
Actually
1) you can't fix something before its broken
2) after breaking what wasn't broken you can't use the same tool you used that caused you to break the unbroken thing
3) the GOP hasn't learned these 2 lessons and they never will because they seek to make a country made up in the minds of Hollywood screen writers to entertain bored people until they were old enough to get a job.
I wouldn't be surprised if it finally sinks in that de Tocqueville's observation about people voting themselves benefits, has come to pass. Sadly there's no alternative to that, leaving only a couple of courses available.
One, jump on the bandwagon and get in line for Govt benefits Two, keep hoarding. Three, invest everything into tax avoidance. Four, all the above.
The GOP have been allowing the wealthy to buy their votes for free handouts to the wealthy since 1890. Really that you support the robber baron mentality of the GOP then pointing fingers else where is rather amusing at best.
Shooter
What is it that you aren't getting here. The theory is simple give lower and middle income people more money by keeping more of what they earn and letting them not have to spend it on things like Health care and offset that by taking some off the top from the people who don't spend it and do everything they can to avoid the government even knowing they have it.
Look at Romney, he had $750,000,000 in a trust set up with his church. that money isn't being invested it's not being spent it's not doing anything except taking up virtual space being kept away from the government that would take it and actually do those things.
Stop and seriously think about this. You can say all you want about redistribution but thats what a progressive tax code is actualy for. Under that system we have done very well for a very long time and for most of that time taxes were even higher than they are now.
Now the question for you is do you support the idea that people by virtue of wealth should be allowed to utilize the benefits of our society (those include roads, bridges, electricity, water, air planes, and just about everything else we have) without having to pay for it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html
What in the world makes you think wealthy people don't pay their way? They pay all the applicable local taxes and income tax too. Hell, they pay all their bills and part of yours. When it comes to income, the 1% makes 17% of the income and pays 37% of the income tax. What more can you want?
http://taxfoundation.org/article_ns/summary-2009-federal-individual-income-tax-data
Dream on shooter dream on. Enjoy those sour grapes I am sure you will be eating them for a very very very long time.
If you are asking me personally I want them to keep their money in this country and quit squirreling it away in Swiss accounts and cayman tax dodges. I want them to actually DO something with it. If they don't want to be taxed on it fine reform capital gains to reflect investment in US companies, but they need to actually spend it on something.
Did you read the thing about Romney...he hid three quarters of a Billion dollars just so that he wouldn't ever have to let the government or anyone have any of it. He didn't invest it. He didn't spend it. He didn't create jobs with it. He didn't build a new company with it. He didn't even actually let his church have it. He did nothing with it.
The problem isn't with making money the problem is wanting to make ALL the money and then keep it so no one else can have any. There is a word for that it's called Avarice, and I can't think of anyone outside of Gordon Gecko who would tell you it's a good idea, or even "Good" period.
Uh, Dragoon.... there's no fixed amount of money. Romney keeping money in a sock, however much it is, doesn't deprive anyone of anything. No person's life changed one little bit, because Romney has cash.
P.S. Romney didn't hide $750 million you added too many zeros. And his grand take on that trust came to $36,696 in 2011.
Hysteria like this just makes you look silly.
To Shooter242 - What makes me think wealthy people don't pay their way? Do you have any idea what the top tax rate was after World War II? That would be 95%, yes ninety-five percent. And it was in the ninety percent range for most this century until the GOP started slashing it in the 80s. And do you know what we've had ever since? Huge budget deficits. So no, I don't think the wealthy are paying their fair share. AT ALL!
Give us all the tax deductions, loopholes and shelters available then and we can talk.
What you may not be aware of is Hauser's law. It turns out that no matter what the highest tax rate is, revenues as a % of GDP doesn't really change much.
http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/wsj-tax-revenue-chart-ed-ah556b_ranso_20080519194014.gif
The really interesting part of your post is thinking that handing over 95% of what one makes is perfectly fine. There's a word for that. Slavery.
Yes how dare white people be made slaves. I mean they'd still get to choose their jobs, open up their own businesses, and this would only apply to people making millions of dollars per year which means they'd still be able to purchase everything they want. But they'd be slaves. Yup.
And then I'm sure you'll whine that racism is totally a post issue and that only demmicrats are blinded by race. *Eyeroll*
The comment about homogeny is the most important observation. The GOP can't reform itself without a diversity of views to compete for the party's direction.
Without a plurality of views on issues internal to the party, there's nothing for them to do but adjust tactics and messaging. They have no one inside the party capable of credibly suggesting a policy alternative.
I think if the the Republicans tossed out the social conservatives/theocrats and focused on business and efficient goverment, they could recover and recover well. It's just the question: are they brave enough to do that?
Without the theocrats and social conservatives, they are down to those who support policies focused on the 1% at the expense of the 99
... a membership of less than 0.1% of the population. Good luck winning elections with that base.
"...the party wants to win but doesn't want to change."
And therein lies the conundrum. With over 100+ years of being "in charge" the GOTP has shown that they are the party of small charactered, authoritarian, rich old irascible white guys - they are used to getting their own way and especially over the last 30+ years have been gorging, bullying, and lying to get it their way! Their unwillingness to even consider that they and the policy positions they support are wrong - makes them wrong for America. Compromise is a dirty word, intimidation is more their style.
Only time will tell whether they will implode or whether they will succeed in co-opting "others" into voting against their own best economic interests - but it's going to be an interesting ride.
It is not hard to understand, Like attracts like; Old White Guys (Orrin Hatch, Jon Cornyn, et al) hang out with their peers. Women, ethnics, gays, make them uncomfortable.
The next four years will be VERY interesting.
It'll get more interesting in two.
Yes, let's not forget that there is another election in 2014.
One could argue that it's admirable for a party to stand firm in its beliefs (even if you disagree with them). Conservatives are going to be pushing this idea - that they stand on principle and can't compromise their principles. But that's hogwash. They DO compromise when it's in their political interests. But they figured if Obama failed (no matter what he tried to do even if it was something they agreed with earlier) then conservatives lose. Opposing Obama and Democrats is the only real principle they stand on. (but you all know that)
The idea of the gop sitting and contemplating brings to mind a video of a chimp smelling its finger after scratching a distant itch. Comment #5 reinforces the image.
I thought comment #5 was sarcasm...? Surely no one, even a TP conbot, is that bat crap crazy. :}
I've never met a Backwoods Bad Ass who was smart enough to find his ass until he had to take a dump. And the only 'principles' they know are the ones whose offices they spent countless hours in during the 5 years they went to school (kindergarten through 2nd grade).
When Boehner is left as your sole leader, it is crying time, fo' sho'.
My prediction: The GOP keeps digging.
Interesting that you would compare this campaign to the Roosevelt/Truman era. I have been charting the parallels in these historic campaigns. There could be more lessons in campaign strategy in following the entirety of the era, along with the country's turn toward military leadership and fanatically against communism.
Here in the future, we can hardly take a few deep breaths before beginning the strategy for 2012. The Tea Party is not an institution and the republican party knows it must be severed if they are going to survive and they are going to need bi-partisan help to do this. Norquist is drowning in his own bloody bathtub.
correction-2014
Perhaps a new Demo PAC should form to target Tea Party congressmen by supporting more reasonable Republicans in primaries. In districts where a Democrat is sure to lose anyway, Democrats could vote for the moderate Republican along with saner Republicans. The Democrat wouldn't even have to spend much money--just be a sacrificial lamb. I would do it.
Steve, you (and many other liberal pundits) wrote a slew of articles exactly like this in 2008 after Obama won the first time. Everyone was crowing about how the Republicans had this major demographic problem, the party had no clear leader other than Rush Limbaugh, the future of the party was uncertain, major changes and restructuring were imperative to ensure the party remains viable, on and on and on.
And then the GOTP swept in a House majority just two short years later in the 2010 midterms. The party found a way to rebuild itself and achieve its goal of total obstruction. The means by which they did this were largely unethical and relied on gaming the system and tapping into the darkest areas of the human psyche -- namely fear and hatred -- but they found the means nonetheless. Let's be honest about this: they will not change in any substantive way this time either, and the same old party, regardless of dysfunctional it actually is, will claw its way eventually. We are far from out of the woods.
One day the GOP will wake up and realize three-quarters of the angry, old, white, straight, rich men that comprise their base have died off, and then, finally, things will begin to change. Until then, it's a mistake to think they won't continue to find ways to get what they want.
Yes, but "what they want" is to remain in office, above all else.
Moderate Republicans may get a tea-party primary challenge, but tea-party favorites can also lose in red states (see Akin, William Todd).
So continued obstruction and being increasingly tied to the wingnuts? Or reasonable compromise? My guess is that Boehner will find ways to compromise and bring most of his party along, allowing the rabid right to vote it's so-called conscious.
The last two years simply can't be allowed to continue for another 4. Continued absolute obstruction will mean a takeover of the House in 2014.
Freddie has a point. The Republicans will dig in and keep digging through the next three presidential election cycles at least. By then demographics will have changed enough that relying on old angry white guys will not win an election.
2010 was not a matter of demographics. It was a matter of Democrats staying home - not enough of them understood the problems that would arise from the GOP taking over the House, so voter turnout lagged badly.
Hopefully we've learned that lesson and won't let it happen again in 2014. In fact, the goal should be to win the House back in that election. Either way, Obama's plans should be well served; if they continue to obstruct, we'll vote them out and have two more years to get things done. If they compromise and cooperate, we'll start getting things done even sooner.
If so, it'll be his last term in office.
And those men you described realize that and are fighting for their existance.
It will be interesting to see if the GOP moves to become more ethnically and socially diverse. They almost have to if they're to survive and prosper as a party. But, if they do, will they drive away the working class white guys they've relied upon for their electoral successes?
If the Dems are smart (always an open question), they will work hard to bring some of those blue-collar, non-college educated white working class voters back into the fold. Re-emphasizing their commitment to industrial unions would be a good way to improve their standing with this group. Focusing on helping very small businesses is another, since many of those who employ fewer than 20-30 people haven't been well represented by either party in the past few years.
I was watching Chuck Todd's show this morning and he had a Republican representative on his show that talked about how the Republicans did not need to figure out how to appeal to women and minorities as much as they had to figure out how to appeal to more blue collar white workers. I have heard other Republican talking heads talk about how they absolutely need to figure out how to appeal to Latinos, but if that one guy is any indication, I don't foresee very much change in the Republican party, which is unfortunate. Until they figure out that compromise is not a dirty word, I don't see much changing- which might lead to another Democratic era.
in 4 years,if the republicans suddenly kiss ass with the latinos and black ,,can we believe them,,i will not ,,,i do not think they care for anyone different that they are,,i do not like it,,bigots are bigots,,,they do not change,,they pretend,,i am white and i am ashamed of some peoples who voted against mr obama just because he is black,,and voted for romney ,not because they like romney,,but because of racist,,against mr obama,,,we are safe for 4 years,next elections if the republicans change their coat,,underneat ,,will they be the same ,,i hope young peoples,,white,latinos,black, oriental etc remember america was built by many nations,,the diversity is good,,we learn as we know each other more,,bigotery is fear of unknown,,,when we vote,,we have to choose integrity over hypocrisie,,,the republicans might pretend to care ,i have my doubts,,,few years back was different,,i respected those republicans,,now republicans are garbage,,good for nothing,,the new republicans are evil ,,and romney was possibly cheney's puppet,,he is like dan quaile and sarah palin for me,,romney is a combination of those 2,when it comes to brain,,mr president do not let the republicans get away with anything,,if the law is not respected,,they should be punished,,like husted who defied the court,,trump who makes threat,,romney who cheats on taxes and that thing with bailout auto industry that he is sued for ,,votes suppression from scott in florida,,all should be investigated,,no matter what king of money they have,,,
Re the lack of leaders, it's noticeable that the real leaders of the movement are outside Congress. They are either the radio shouters like Limbaugh, the organizers like Dick Armey and the money men lke the Kochs. The Congressional GOP are just the marionettes. Was Romney any different? A problem they face is how to transform this weird and self-enclosed network of money, noise, think tanks, radio stations, etc., back into a vital political movement.
Support should be based on belief of a policy and not based on diversity of color or ethnicity.
I certainly hope Obama did not win just because more minorities voted rather than the number of "standard old white guys" for the GOP.
I know the demographics change through time but if the Democrats want to win the next presidential election, do they have enough guts to abandon the play for people (minority voters for say...Julian Castro) and run on policy?
check on rachel maddow show all that mr president obama accomplished even with the republicans saying no to everything he proposed for the good of the country,,mr obama did a lot,,the real enemies of americans are the republicans we have now,,,even if it is good for the country,,they said no over and over,,still mr obama did a lot mr obama all the way for 4 years
Wouldn't the best start in the "recalibration" of the party be to strike the "real America" mantra?
The way this expression has been used ended up ignoring many groups in America that are gaining in numbers and voice.
If a party ignores evolution and climate change and the diversifying movement in the land and people, their vision of America remains like a Rockwell painting ( and I am a big Norman Rockwell fan). It's a still of a moment in time...in a time past, in a seemingly simpler time, but it does not move, it ends there... And it is no longer depicts what it really looks like or feels like in America.
This is a huge huge challenge....to move a platform that has been living in a totally different time zone....especially because 'some' of the leaders of that platform are getting great benefit from that platform....
The 'real America' today for both parties is crying out to be heard on more than just the occasion of elections......
The GOP as well as the Democratic Party need to understand that trickle down doesn't work...not for economics, not for party policy! The president has said in his speeches recently that America has to work from the middle out and that is how policy should work.... The ideas should come not from the top but observed from the middle and broadened out. This does happen more often on the left and but so rarely on the right. TV and news pundits, organization advocates and policy makers need to stop preaching down to the electorate and instead take to heart what the electorate is saying itself to form a platform.
A pundit on MSNBC just made that point this morning--referred to it as nostalgia.
Yeah, we don't all need to be brought into this nostalgia fantasy, do we?
Agree with Trompeter. The uber rich will easily find front men to "lead" their agenda. And they're not taking today off. I'm sure they are figuring out how to manipulate people of any demographic into agreeing with them, against their own best interests. And we know how good they are at dominating the media, framing issues to control, and lying. As long as they have the money/power and relative secrecy, I think they win the long game. So we have a lot of work to do ourselves...
An interesting side-effect of the unlimited money era is that the party has a lot less power to drive the discussion. After all, who is going to give the candidate more money, the GOP party or the Adelsons and Kochs?
That means that there is far less ability for party leadership to set strategy.
The world is changing, and recognizing that is the first step to recovery for the Republicans. The problem is that when you are "right", you have no room to learn or grow...because you're RIGHT. People who are "right" seldom change because they can't conceive of anything but their "rightness".
On the other hand, if you are liberal you realize there are a lot of possibilities and someone else may actually have a better take on it than you. Openness, room to grow, attention to new ideas characterize liberal thinking, which is why they will always win ultimately..... or the world would have ended long ago.
Same old – same old
Mary Matalin, former chief of staff of the Republican National Committee and wife of Democratic strategist James Carville, appeared on CNN today. She basically implied that Obama was a selfish, back stabbing liar with no realistic economic plan. At first I thought she was referring to Romney. So I guess, the GOPs opposition to Obamas infrastructure rebuilding plan is still dead in the water as far as Republicans are concerned. Also my sympathy to poor James Carville.