I like this John Heilemann piece a lot, but something goes wrong at the end:
“If Romney is the nominee and he loses in November, I think we’ll see a resurgence of the charismatic populist right,” says Robert Alan Goldberg, a history professor at the University of Utah and author of a biography of Barry Goldwater. “Not only will [the grassroots wing] say that Romney led Republicans down the road to defeat, but that the whole type of conservatism he represents is doomed.”
Goldberg points out that this is what happened in 1976, when the party stuck with Ford over Reagan, was beaten by Carter, and went on to embrace the Gipper’s brand of movement conservatism four years later. So who does Goldberg think might be ascendant in the aftermath of a Romney licking? “Sarah Palin,” he replies. “She’s an outsider, she has no Washington or Wall Street baggage, she’s electric—and she’s waiting, because if Romney doesn’t win, she will be welcomed in.”
But if it’s Santorum who is the standard-bearer and then he suffers an epic loss, a different analogy will be apt: Goldwater in 1964. (And, given the degree of the challenges Santorum would face in attracting female voters, epic it might well be.) As Kearns Goodwin points out, the rejection of the Arizona senator’s ideology and policies led the GOP to turn back in 1968 to Nixon, “a much more moderate figure, despite the incredible corruption of his time in office.” For Republicans after 2012, a similar repudiation of the populist, culture-warrior coalition that is fueling Santorum’s surge would open the door to the many talented party leaders—Daniels, Christie, Bush, Ryan, Bobby Jindal—waiting in the wings for 2016, each offering the possibility of refashioning the GOP into a serious and forward-thinking enterprise.
[…] [I]n the long run, it might do a world of good, compelling Republicans to return to their senses—and forge ahead into the 21st century. Which is why all people of common sense and goodwill might consider, in the days ahead, adopting a slogan that may strike them as odd, perverse, or even demented: Go, Rick, go.
I don’t think this is totally wrong, I do think that if Romney loses badly in the general, that’s the end of the Scarborough-Huntsman wing of the Republican party. But is the light we see on our teevee screens during Morning Joe already just the light from a galaxy that died years ago?
Some Very Serious Conservatives dream of telling the Palinese Liberation Army to suck on this. But once the PLA become the majority of the Republican party — and they’re close to that already — how do the VSCs plan to accomplish this?
David Koch
Palin?
BWHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAAHHAHA
MikeJ
When the Republican loses, be it Romney or Santorum, the Republicans will go further right. The money guys will will swallow and say it’s ok to have a Jesus freak in charge as long as it’s no taxes Jesus he worships. All pretense of being sane will be gone.
If Romney loses it’s because he wasn’t a big enough nutbar. If Santorum loses it’s because of the Dolchstoß from the money guys (and expect the base of the Republicans to start making connections between the money guys that run the party and the protocols of the elders of Zion.)
superdestroyer
There is not enough social conservatives to sustain a major political party based on social conservative issues. However, there are not enough middle class, private sector moderates to sustain a party that you give a majority to a party that would vote for Huntsman or Christie.
What Republicans are just doing to have to face is that there is no place in the U.S. for a conservative party. The demographic trends of the U.S. are against any conservative party being relevant in the U.S.
What the current Republicans voters should realize is that they will have a much bigger effect on policy and governance if they just all start voting in the Democratic primary. Why not try to effect the government is a low turnout election instead of trying to hold back a demographic wave.
PeakVT
[I]n the long run, it might do a world of good, compelling Republicans to return to their senses—and forge ahead into the 21st century.
This isn’t going to happen unless the business wing of the party can make Faux and the rest of the right-wing media to stop lying about everything. And lying is a proven eyeball-catcher.
Chuck Butcher
Do what the fuck…?
Chris
@MikeJ:
FTFY.
Shawn in ShowMe
Reminds me of the time when the repudiation of disco led to the populist, culture-warrior music of Christopher Cross, Lionel Richie and Kenny Loggins.
chopper
the incorrect assumption here is that nothing has changed much in the GOP in the last 50 years. if rih wins it and epic fails against obama, i have no confidence at all that 4 years later a newer, more moderate GOP will be running a candidate. i would think the GOP would go even crazier and double down.
DougJarvus Green-Ellis
@Shawn in ShowMe:
Awesome.
David Koch
John Heilemann, if you’re reading this, in what way are Daniels, Christie, Bush, Ryan, Bobby Jindal “forward-thinking”?
samara morgan
doubt she will run.
1. she doesnt relly want to be president– too much work involved.
2. by 2016 she will be post menopausal. her neck is already gettin crepey.
3. Game Change is gunna make a lot of people laff at her again. its just not presidential to curl up in a fetal position on the bathroom floor and sob.
Chuck Butcher
@chopper:
Another four years of that black guy??? Calmness will have ensued? Woah, I’ve heard of this girl… Polyanna.
Felanius Kootea
@Chuck Butcher: When a Christine Todd Whitman-style Republican can win a Republican primary, I’ll believe that things are changing. I don’t see her vetoing a gay marriage bill. I see all the people listed in that last bit being willing to do just that (Chris Christie already has).
samara morgan
@David Koch: dude, each one of those people mentioned is just as flawed as the current klown kar of kandidates.
Christie is morbidly obese, Jindal helped perform exorcisms and wrote about it in a catholic journal, Bush has That Name, and Ryan cant even handle bluehaired townhall hecklers on his mediscare vouchers.
Chris
@superdestroyer:
The Democratic Party spent most of the twentieth century headed for a painful divorce with its Southern branch; it put it off as long as it could, kicked the can down the road a few times, but in the end, it just had to happen.
And that seems like exactly the position Republicans are in now; it may take a long, long time, but eventually they’ll have to go their separate ways. Ah, well. That’s what they get for hooking up with our crazy ex.
Schlemizel
I think if ol frothy is the candidate his shelacking will lead to greater control of the money boys – a very bad thing. If Willard gets the nod his ass-kicking will send the American Taliban into a tizzy that will force the GOP even further into wingnut land. That may finally be the end of the beast. I hope so
Davis X. Machina
The 50% +1 model doesn’t work if you can’t get to 50%.
Ten years ago it was easy to get that 50%. It’s not impossible …yet.
The GOP are, if you’re the betting type still value for money for the White House….and favored for both houses of Congress.
Marc
Yeah, something goes wrong at the end of that piece. Heilemann turns into an out and out cheerleader for the GOP establishment and tries to paint Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels and the like as the moderate alternatives. Because nothing says “moderation” like killing unions and gutting Medicare.
The worst part is that I’m not even sure these guys would be any better than Santorum on the social issues. Let’s say that some perfect shitstorm gets Chris Christie elected president. Does anybody think he wouldn’t do exactly what the social conservatives demanded? He just vetoed a marriage equality bill to stay in their good graces.
There are no GOP moderates anymore, just better actors.
The Dangerman
@MikeJ:
This.
Chris
@efgoldman:
Maybe, but it’s also possible that the Boehner Brigade will go all-out batshit fucking insane, like Gingrich & Co. did during Clinton’s second term, and end up alienating voters with that.
Will
Anyone else see the current top headline at Memeorandum? “Santorum comes from behind in Alabama 3-way”. I am not kidding.
superdestroyer
@Chris:
The most likely scenario is that the U.S. becomes a one party state much like places like DC and Chicago operate today along with Mass. and now California.
The long term question is not what will happen to the Repubican Party but what will happen to politics in the coming one party state.
Spaghetti Lee
You need a soul to do soul-searching, so I doubt the Republicans are going to have a wake-up call any time soon. More practically, I think the way they gain power is institutional rather than depending on specific candidates, i.e. when they’re out of power they whine and bitch about how government can’t do anything and when they’re in power they prove it. To the extent that there’s a real centralized power in the GOP it’s the guys who write the checks. Whatever lukewarm bodies are filling the halls of congress don’t really matter.
I think there’s maybe two scenarios that would change the game. One, if they suffer truly unheard of losses on the federal level, something like only 20 Republicans left in the Senate and a 100 in the house, something like that might cause even the loons to say “OK, what the fuck are we doing wrong?” At a certain point even institutional power fails you if there aren’t enough people to see it through. Two, if an actual moderate Republican makes some inroads in the party, not a poser like Romney whose centrism is just a facade, but someone harkening back to, say, Margaret Chase Smith or Dwight Eisenhower. I don’t see either of those two things happening.
Martin
@MikeJ:
Except there are more and more money guys that are less concerned about taxes than the deficit. The problem is that the tax issue directly translates into a rationale for giving to anti-tax campaigns, the deficit issue doesn’t. So I think ‘money guys’ is hugely over-broad. Warren Buffet is the ultimate ‘money guy’, after all.
But the anti-tax rhetoric isn’t working for the GOP, except to bring in SuperPAC money. And if the SuperPAC giving by billionaires doesn’t result in them recouping their investment through lower tax rates, then they’re not going to keep giving – unless they’re also interested in the culture war message as Adelson is. At some point the Kochs are going to decide this is a bad investment. Even quite a few GOP voters aren’t opposed to raising taxes on the rich, and as income for middle class workers continues to stagnate, that’s going to be a harder and harder sell for them.
The culture war stuff only serves to shrink the GOP tent. They know this. But it gets their small tent out there voting, and that’s why they’re cranking it up – the GOP base isn’t turning out. And that’s really going to be the turning point – when the GOP decides that the culture war turnout can’t overcome fewer and fewer numbers of registered voters. I think they passed that point in 2004, but who’s going to make that call? Who’s going to step up and risk their wingnut welfare to change the course of the party? Fox News might actually be the entity to kill the GOP by enabling them to avoid the obvious long past the point that they can correct course.
Nutella
@efgoldman:
FTFY
Davis X. Machina
Can never happen. Too many Big Empty Square States.
Keith G
I wonder what demographic shift will do to these outcomes. GOP mortality rate must be higher than US average while it’s fertility rate is lower. They will have to moderate and broaden their appeal or eventually follow the Shakers into oblivion.
Mary G
I think we live in interesting times when so much is different from the way it used to be and that something no one has even thought of yet may happen.
Spaghetti Lee
Also, Palin’s a joke, even by “GOP savior” standards. Can everyone just please shut up about her?
Delia
There aren’t enough moderate Repubs to fill the breakfast room at a Ramada Inn. Or maybe the Applebee’s salad bar. Going double plus crazy and doubling down is the only option left. I’ll see you the Protocols of the Elders of Mecca and raise you the Protocols of the Elders of Salt Lake City.
trollhattan
I’ll be the twenty-seventh to note no matter who loses and no matter by how much, the prescription will be, “Harder right, stat!”
It’s like the Far Side horse veterinarian book where the answer to every ailment is “shoot horse.”
It’s how they do.
David Koch
Even if Romney narrowly wins Michigan, he’s not out of the woods. He’s still polling poorly in the south (especially Texas) and PPP reports Man-on-Dog is up big in Walkerstan.
David Koch
I’m surprised Hollywood hasn’t cast Palin as “Catwoman”.
She would be perfect, bring new life to the character, the same way Health Ledger brought new life to “The Joker”.
Spaghetti Lee
@Davis X. Machina:
I’m not sure they’re the problem. For the Senate, ND, SD, MT, NM, and AK are sending 7 out of a possible 10 Democrats to the Senate (yeah, yeah, bitch all you want about Conrad or Begich or whoever: any possible Republican would be worse). Maybe things are changing, but it seems like those smaller states are sometimes more concerned about their own issues and you can sneak in a Democrat who cares about those issues outside of the ‘national’ political dialogue. I think the bigger problem is the South, but I also wonder if there are demographic timers in places like Georgia and Tennessee not quite as big as the one in Texas, but that will go off eventually.
Splitting Image
Very Serious Conservatives, for the most part, work for large corporations.
Corporations love tea partiers because most of the time they make better customers than “liberals”. It’s easier to peddle whatever you’re selling to people who are in most respects gullible morons. If you can sell people on the idea that Barack Obama is a Kenyan Islamofascist using Saul Alinksy secular-socialist radicalism to implement gay sharia, you can sell them Tide, Coke, Microsoft Windows, or whatever else you’re peddling. Discerning customers who are skeptical of what a TV bobblehead tells them are not highly valued by most companies.
This is the source of the alliance of convenience between the Chamber of Commerce and the “religious right”. The only way this will break is for the “religious right” to start costing the companies that make up the Chamber more money than they make by catering their marketing strategy towards them (i.e. throwing them the occasional bone on social justice).
They are headed in that direction, but I don’t think they are quite there yet. The Chamber will rethink its marketing strategies when it happens but not before. Once the Very Serious Conservatives get their marching orders to turn on the “tea party”, they will do so immediately and in force. The way they will tell them to “suck on this” is to back the Democratic party and lead them to a landslide win or two over the PLA. (Some of Obama’s detractors feel they already did this once in 2008.)
It’s helpful to think of the country as comprised of the 1%, the 50%, and the 49%, rather than simply the 1% and the 99%. The goal of the 1% is to side with the 50% to create a governing majority, and to keep enough swing votes that its current allies can be replaced if they forget that they are the junior partner.
This is why abortion has always been the hot button issue rather than conception. The way the 1% tries to maintain its power is to keep people focused on issues that prevent the 50% and the 49% from becoming the 62% and the 37%. As many people have said, the conservatives will lose horribly if they make conception an issue in November. The 1%, if they stay with the tea partiers through that, will be on the losing side and they won’t like that. The PLA asserting its control over the party on a long-term basis will mean the 1% would be stuck in the political wilderness for a generation. I guarantee you that won’t happen. Either they put the PLA back in the box or they join the winners.
A lot of people appreciate the influence that money has in politics, but I don’t think everyone quite gets the importance of keeping the political factions balanced. Compare how much power Ben Nelson or Olympia Snowe had in 2009, when a single vote in the Senate determined the outcome of the health care debate, with the amount of power they have now. Money talks, but it talks louder in a close election. If the tea partiers are willing to cause one blowout win after another for the Democrats in the cause of ideological purity, then it makes it a lot more expensive a proposition for the 1% to get behind them and try to force a win. If the 1% decides that there is no longer a business case for supporting the “conservative movement”, they will pull the plug.
The Dangerman
@trollhattan:
Given that their base has been told for years by the Ususal Suspects that Obama will be defeated, there will be lots of prescriptions being written.
eemom
meh. I personally find this constant obsessive handicapping of the next horse race boring as shit — not to mention utterly, absolutely, worthless.
A year from now when Romney, Santorum, Gingrich et al. are mercifully consigned to the dustbin of history, a whole new set of circumstances that nobody can possibly foresee will be in place. And ditto for the year after that, and the year after that.
However, I recognize that y’all love this stupid navel/crystal ball gazing…. just like you love the tedious, endless repetitions of phrases like Very Serious and Galtian Overlords…..and the perpetual fixations on worthless nobodies like Brooks and McCardle and Sullivan….AND the conviction that those people are the absolute arbiters of all public opinion. And it’s Saturday night. So have at it.
Delia
@Spaghetti Lee:
Way back in the early 70s when I was a college student in Utah my Poly Sci 101 prof discussed why conservative western states (including Utah & Idaho at that time) had powerful Dem senators. His answer was precisely that. And not only that they were concerned about local issues in a general way, but if some rancher got into a water rights dispute with the feds, for example, he could call his senator’s office for some help. I expect that hasn’t changed.
Martin
@Keith G:
It’s unbelievably bad, actually. What people fail to realize about states like CA and TX is that they demographic situation is moving a lot faster than they realize. 50% of babies born in CA and TX are latino. Even though latinos are still a minority in TX, there’s a huge wave of young latinos now hitting voting age due to immigration and higher birth rates. You can see that wave moving through CA public schools and just since 2008 the % of students graduating high school that are latino jumped significantly.
The only place where the demographics are favoring the GOP is in appalachia. Even in states like SC and GA, it’s going against them. NC might soon tip into being a reliable blue state.
If the Dems can get young voter turnout up like it was in 2008 and get latino voter turnout up, the GOP will never win another election without a serious reinvention. If registered latino voters had turned out in Texas in 2008 at the same rate as registered white voters, Obama would have won that state. I’m increasingly convinced that Obama is going to make a serious run for Texas this cycle. He may not win the state, but I think he’s going to make the GOP earn it – and that has to scare the GOP shitless. If they lose Texas, they have no electoral hope. And with an open Senate seat and 4 new districts, and redistricting chaos there, it’s a really tempting target.
Chris
@superdestroyer:
Not sure about that: we have a way of sticking to the two party system. It seems more likely that Republicans will simply become a minority party until they can get their shit sorted out, same as Democrats were in the Gilded Age and Republicans in the “liberal consensus” age.
On the other hand, the last time a group of conservatives this psychotic were faced with the prospect of losing control of the government, they actually started a civil war. I don’t think that’s in the cards this time, but you never know what sort of crazy shit might happen.
David Koch
@MikeJ:
Newt’s already playing that dog whistle.
dww44
@Marc: I’ve long believed this:
and I am depressed just contemplating the veracity of this:
@Davis X. Machina:
Seriously, what does this all say about American voters and America? I know plenty of otherwise sane and rational conservatives, but they still swallow this GOP whole and worship at its feet. I know the answer, it’s too much fundamentalist and organized religion. It’s warped their brains.
David Koch
@eemom:
So who do you plan to support in 2016, Hillary or Martin O’Malley?
Chuck Butcher
A whole bunch of you foresee that 27% shrinking. If the GOP loses the racist themes, there are plenty of replacements. I’m not going to argue about social conservatism demographics a generation from now, I don’t have a crystal ball that size. There is a good sized coterie of social conservatives within minority ranks, some already belong and a hell of a lot don’t simply thanks to the racism.
You can go right ahead and note that I said nothing whatever about bigotry or prejudice.
Shawn in ShowMe
@eemom:
Lloyd Dobler: I got a question. If you guys know so much about women, how come you’re here at like the Gas ‘n’ Sip on a Saturday night completely alone drinking beers with no women anywhere?
Joe: By choice, man.
trollhattan
Newtie’s chatting up the California Republicans today.
There will eventually be about a hundred California Republicans–40 from Orange County, 10 from Bakersfield, 20 from Fresno and 30 from Redding.
Rawk Chawk
@eemom:
Wow, eemom, pretty much exactly what I’ve been thinking the last few weeks. Only you said it better than I ever could, of course. Little else at BJ besides repetitious obsessing over the republican freak show; lots of laughing and pointing at the other side and “hey, aren’t we awesome?” dumb bullshit posts.
Oddly, there’s a strong undercurrent of fear…otherwise why all the endless focus on the loser republicans whose entire party is soon to go out of existence anyway? Why not focus on improving the democratic party, where this blog might actually have some influence?
Cole’s been way to free with the car keys around here and it shows. Lots of front page car wrecks.
Rick Taylor
I don’t believe it. When Palin when for Vice President, it helped to legitimate the crazy, and make it more powerful. Suddenly, pundits had to treat right wing populism with more respect; after all, nearly all Republicans had affirmed that someone like Sarah Palin was competent to be the one who’d take over as President should anything ever happen to McCain. If having Palin run as Vice President had that kind of effect, how much more will it legitimize the crazy when it’s running at the top of the ticket. Plus if anything, Santorum is more frighteningly extreme than Sarah Palin was.
Spaghetti Lee
@dww44:
I think it’s a question of prejudices forming in childhood and just hardening in like cement. Kinda like how there’s some counties in rural Michigan and Indiana and the like that have voted Republican every year since the Civil War, even though they’re not nearly the most reactionary or conservative places in the country. Dad voted Republican, so did granddad and great-granddad, so by God, I’m going to vote Republican too.
I don’t think it’s because of stupidity or even willful stubbornness: like you said, there’s plenty of otherwise sane people who vote Republican. From what I can tell from my very limited understanding of psychology, the human brain just cannot stand admitting that it’s wrong, and will pull out at all the stops, re: self-justification and self-deception, to avoid it.
Spaghetti Lee
@Rawk Chawk:
OK, I’ll bite. What do you think the front pages should be talking about instead?
Martin
@Chuck Butcher:
Oh, no question. But I would note that the social conservatives within the minority ranks tend overall to be less activist in nature. Sure, the 27% is going to hold firm – the question is can an increasingly activist GOP base on social issues draw in social conservative minorities that tend to not be activist? I’m not so sure. I think it’s going to take some time for immigrants to more strongly associate with being an anti-abortion voter than associate with being a latino.
David Koch
@trollhattan: Hilarious. Newt campaigning in a San Francisco suburb, 4 months before California has their primary, instead of spending time in Michigan, Arizona, or one of the 10 Super Tuesday states that votes in merely 10 days.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
The GOP is past the point of no return, imo. The crazies have tasted some power and control, and aren’t going to be placated by so called normal republicans, or those we have had running for office the past 40 years or so. The Obama presidency has put the 27 percenters in a nihilistic state of mind and they aren’t going to go for anything that smells RINO. Add on to that demographic pressures on the center right bunch, and democrats are looking pretty good for the short to medium turn. But there are a lot of things we haven’t thought of that will happen, when they happen, so who really knows where we will end up. Maybe slinging mortars back and forth over the wire, or maybe not. But some very big changes are going to have to happen, especially on the economic front, or else.
Martin
@David Koch:
That help?
Judge Crater
It it possible we are witnessing the death throws of the Republican Party? It has become an institution that no longer cares about governing nor has any real program for doing so. It has regressed to any angry, fundamentalist core whose ideology is proscribed by the propaganda of Fox News and the anger of talk radio.
What becomes of this rancid nucleus of the GOP is hard to predict. It could die or it could metastasize into something that threatens the federalism that holds the nation together.
mclaren
@trollhattan:
That quote by Gingrich is revealing. Because Americans apparently don’t realize that no matter how they vote for they’re going to get $10 a gallon gasoline and increased dependence on foreign energy.
It’s called “Peak Oil.” And nobody can stop it.
mclaren
@Judge Crater:
The reality is that America is becoming more Republican, not less.
Source: “The Increasingly Republican States of America,” The Atlantic Magazine, Nov. 8 2011.
boss bitch
What fantasy world is this person living in? When the party stops thinking any of these clowns and dead fish will save them….the healing will begin.
Emma
@mclaren: And then you ask them specific questions about policies and guess what, they’re all democrats. They just don’t want to call themselves that. But woe betide whoever touches their medicare, medicaid, government-supported old age services, etc., etc., etc.
It had been thus for a while.
eemom
@efgoldman:
oh snap. There’s an imaginative comeback.
mclaren
Okay — so why does the GOP keep putting nearly 50% (or sometimes more than 50%) of the congressmen in the House? And why is the senate now close to tipping over into GOP control?
I keep hearing liberals and Demos proclaim that the GOP is doomed, doomed, doomed. I for one wish it were true. The electoral reality is that we seem to be stuck at virtually 50-50 division twixt Repubs and Demos in both the House and the Senate.
Chuck Butcher
@eemom:
someone somewhere shit in your wheaties?
FuriousPhil
@Splitting Image:
I enjoyed reading that, nice comment.
@Rawk Chawk:
Because inherently, many Dems act exactly the same as the conservatives do, demonizing and obsessing over the perceived and actual flaws of the opposition. It’s easier to hate/mock/deride than be constructive. It also happens to be an effective strategy for getting people to vote for you, somehow. For us, it feels dishonest and intellectually lazy. For them, it’s been the modus operandi since Reagan.
Also, reading this makes me feel kind of hopeless about trying to convince people anymore.
mclaren
@boss bitch:
A fantasy world in which an ignorant senile B-movie actor who starred with a chimpanzee became one of the most beloved presidents in American history while systematically destroying the middle class and trashing the constitution.
Discount “clowns and dead fish” at your peril.
Jewish Steel
@Shawn in ShowMe: Awesome II
eemom
@efgoldman:
Yeah, I get that.
The point is that it’s a stupid generic response that applies equally to any critical comment of any kind that anyone makes for any reason about the content of a particular blog post.
And a whole fuckload of the comments on this particular blog fall into that category. This time it happened to be mine. If you don’t like it, there are plenty of OTHER comments you can read.
Chris
@FuriousPhil:
From linkee,
Yep. And the article later points out why, but it’s pretty simple: the more educated they are, the more time and attention they devote to politics (and therefore to Gooper agitprop), and the deeper they go into their delusions.
In the same way, a Brezhnev-era Soviet economist who’d spent his entire life studying Marx and Engels is way more educated than a Moscow cab driver, but the cab driver probably has a better handle on how the economy’s really doing, even if he doesn’t know how to write official memos about them.
In a perverse way it’s kind of comforting: it means we have more chance of reaching the low-information voters, and there are a lot more of these.
cmorenc
@DougJarvis Green-Ellis:
There could be a positive opportunity here for some of them to leave the Republican Party and help lead this country back to sanity and 73% of this country mostly getting along for awhile, while the 27% fume. They won’t necessarily become Democrats, but many of them will be people you can deal honestly.
Why would they leave? Their own party has gone nuts, and doesn’t really want them all that much any more, they were RINOs anyway to many of the others.
Let’s hope this is true. Think of John Cole as a perfect example of a Pioneer come over from the dark side to the progressive side. That’s what I’m thinking of. More John Coles, except let’s allow John Cole #2 to have a retired racing greyhound to keep his version of Lilly company instead of a Jack Russel.
David Koch
As long as we’re talkin’ about 2016, I think it’ll be btwn Martin O’Malley and Brian Schweitzer.
Hillary and Warren aren’t gonna run.
Gillibrand will but she’s still a work in progress.
Cuomo can’t run unless he remarries and even the White House isn’t worth a ball and chain.
In the end, O’Malley gets the nomination because he has better communication skills and knows how to fire up voters.
Spaghetti Lee
@mclaren:
Oh come on now. You think the GOP would be the first political party to hang onto power through various types of chicanery even when a lot of actual people in the country didn’t agree with them anymore? It’s not necessarily an indication of people’s feelings.
mclaren
@efgoldman:
Why is it “bullshit” trolling to point out that half the states in the U.S. remaing Republican-dominated even while liberals and Democrat proclaim with serene triumphalism “the Republican party is doomed!”?
Seems like a valid point to me. If the Republican party is so completely doomed and so obviously insane, voters should be abandoning it in droves.
They’re not.
I’d say that calls into question the notion that the Republican party is seen as insane by a clear majority of the American people. And that, in turn, says some very scary things about the American people.
mclaren
Meanwhile, efgoldman, you can’t explain why virtually every popular election since the year 2000 in America has been deadlocked between Republicans and Democrats at nearly exactly 50%-50%. Except, of course, for the election right after one of the biggest economic crises in American history.
Your argument isn’t convincing. Everything I say is wrong, but you have no explanation for why Americans vote as they do. You can’t explain the current electoral near-exact-deadlock twixt Repubs and Demos.
pseudonymous in nc
For those who aren’t aware of pooperdestroyer’s ongoing thesis, it can be summarized thus: “the brown folks are taking over Real Soon Now, and white racists need to start voting for Democrats so that the brown folks don’t get to make all the rules.”
Martin
@mclaren:
Because even if you pool all of those states together, they’re swamped by the increasingly blue CA electoral votes. Hell, they’re swamped by Manhattan which is 75% Democratic. Now, it’s a valid issue with regard to the Senate, but that’s it.
Further, all you’re doing is mapping the “white folks terrified of the coming Jalupa menace”, which is a bit like mapping “people that think horseless carriages are powered by demon spirits”. They’re going to get over their phobias through assimilation or death, but eventually they’ll get over it.
eemom
@David Koch:
Well sheeyit, I have to apologize. The breathtaking coherence and rock-solid prescience of that analysis totally obliterates my earlier opinion.
dead existentialist
Jesus, I’m getting tired of these weak analogies to past elections.
Goldwater lost to an incumbent (and because he was too radical).
Nixon won because the Democratic Party was in disarray because the incumbent wasn’t running.
Carter beat Ford because Ford had been appointed by Nixon (after Agnew got indicted), and the country wanted to distance itself from Nixon.
Carter lost because of the Iranian hostage debacle and the economy.
Fuck, in the modern political era, G.H. Bush was the only VP of a sitting Administration to win the Presidency:
Nixon lost in ’60.
Humphrey lost in ’68.
Ford lost in ’76.
Gore lost in 2000.
Since WWII, no President who was able to run for re-election failed to do so, and before that FDR served 4 terms and died in office only to be replaced by Truman who won re-election.
IOW, Americans don’t like to “change horses in the middle of a stream.” (Attributed to a 2 term President.)
Wut am my point? Weasels rip my flesh or something.
Chuck Butcher
@dead existentialist:
well, Carter puts a bit of a hole in that theory.
Petorado
Heileman’s rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. When the ship’s going down, folks look for a new ship to rescue them, not a repackaged,more right wing version of the one that hit the iceberg.
The contraception issue, SGK, and the steady creep of gay marriage mean the culture war stuff is slowly losing salience. Republican primary enthusiasm is low, not Mitts are the flavor of the week, and the right is looking for other options through talk of brokered conventions, Third Ways, and Americans Elect. Not a happy group.
If Obama wins big and Dems take back some seats, the money part of the GOBP will reassess its bets. I expect Republicans to get a less hard line candidate next time, and try to find the next version of Reagan populism than finding ever more cultural divisions to exploit. Where’s the money in lining up with pedophile-protecting Catholic Bishops on hating contraception? Culture wars have jumped the shark. I expect the anti-healthcare, anti-labor, anti-public services stuff will increasingly sink home for too many. If a Republican used to be a Democrat that got mugged, a Democrat will now be a Republican who wants some of the safety net that R’s are hell-bent on destroying.
cokane
I disagree with Heileman analysis. And always thought he was a hack who wrote speculative bullshit without any empirical foundation.
Fact is 4 years is a life-time in US politics. Also, it will be an open election which always inspires the more talented folks to turn out. In 4 years a huge majority of people will forget that Romney or Santorum lost. Those won’t be the issues deciding who wins the nomination in 2016.
The issues will be whether we should do a troop surge in Iran, or what we’re going to do for further cost containment on health care or what we do about $8/gallon gasoline. The issues will be so radically different — and so very immediate — in 2016, that whoever the fuck lost in 2012 will be an after-thought.
Hell this time last year (or even as late as last summer) every political pundit hackjob like Heileman was predicting that Obama and the Dems were going to lose 2012.
MikeJ
@dead existentialist:
Never heard of LBJ?
dead existentialist
@Chuck Butcher: Goddamn my rhetorical malfeasance! Never, say never. “. . .no President other than Carter . . . .”
Better?
Chuck Butcher
@mclaren:
Jayzus Mclaren,
I won’t argue that policies haven’t drifted rightward, but you might have noticed that an actual majority of Americans approved of a public option. A fucking public option.
Now, if you want to confuse who gets elected with how the public feels, you’re welcome to. YOU brought up the election following the economic catastrophy, maybe you missed that ’10 was an ongoing of nearly the same damn thing. Disgusted isn’t the same thing as right wing.
If you want to rail at the Democratic Party and at gerrymandered districts and a lack of credible Primary challenges – that is one thing – it is another to shit all over a public that is faced with the choices it is faced with. Another thing they’re faced with is trying to keep a fucking job and maintain a home life and that is pretty time and effort intensive, so maybe they don’t pay attention at the detailed level poli-junkies do. The media doesn’t help much, either, with the concept of an informed electorate, now does it?
dead existentialist
@MikeJ: March 31, 1968.
ETA: I remember it was my birthday, and I saw it as a really cool present.
kledd
If Romney gets the nomination and loses, I would guess Santorum gets the nomination next time. There’ve been 9 open GOP nomination contests since 1960, and the only time the nominee wasn’t the guy who came in second last time was when the guy who came in second last time didn’t run. Santorum will spend four years saying “I told you so” to every county GOP chairman in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina. The 2016 nominee isn’t going to be Daniels or some other guy who hasn’t run before. It’s never some guy who hasn’t run before.
pseudonymous in nc
@kledd:
But he won’t hold elected office, and won’t have held elected office for ten years by 2016. That’s a fucking long time, and in the meantime, there’ll be shiny new teabagger governors elected in 2009-10 establishing their own bona fides.
Viva BrisVegas
The Labor Party here has decided to put on a cage fight to the political death tomorrow between past and current PM. The conservatives are lining up with popcorn and vuvuzelas while the rest of us sink into the slough of despond.
In fact this has made me so despondent I’m going to make gratuitous comments about somebody else’s political system.
Am I right in thinking that even if Obama spanks whichever Republican runs against him, that it is most likely that the House will remain Republican and the Senate become more Republican with even a chance of a R majority?
If so, how does that weaken the Tea Party? How does an even more radical Congress battling Obama at every step not invigorate and embiggen the radical right?
Basically what I’m saying is that unless there is a turnaround of Democratic fortunes in Congress isn’t Obama in for just four more years of the same?
kledd
@pseudonymous in nc: Nixon hadn’t held elective office for 8 years before getting nominated in 68. When was the last time Romney was elected to something? Yes, there will be new and shiny governors in 2016. There were new and shiny people in 2012 and 2008, too, but they weren’t the nominees. The GOP doesn’t nominate new and shiny.
Yutsano
@Viva BrisVegas:
At least two if the House stays Republican (which I’m not certain will happen) and the Senate flips. It will be pretty much deadlock since Obama can veto bills all he wants to. But deadlock does NOT sit well with folks especially with a fragile economy. They’re already overreaching, and the election is still 8 months off. That’s an eternity in politics.
Chuck Butcher
@Viva BrisVegas:
At this stage predicting Congress is a loopey idea. There are a hell of a lot of things that happen over the course of months of election. Most countries don’t go through this protracted a process and don’t know how messy and changable our system makes things.
rageahol
whigs.
parsimon
@Viva BrisVegas:
Quite possibly.
I don’t think the Tea Party influence will become stronger, though: they’re increasingly looked at askance by not just politicians who’d actually like to get something — anything — done, but by the electorate at large. They look like nothing so much as a bunch of whiners, out of touch with the realities. (Refusing to raise the debt ceiling last year was pretty shockingly nuts, and I think virtually everyone knew it.)
David Koch
@eemom: Heh, I knew I could bait you. You’re so easy. I didn’t even have to bring up Greece.
Viva BrisVegas
Then I’ve got to ask the obvious question, how are they getting elected? I realise that not every republican is Tea Party, but it looks a lot like the ones that aren’t are quite prepared to jump onto the back of the clown car.
So if the Tea Party, and by extension Republicans in general, are on the nose with voters, how is it that the most likely result in November is a redder Congress?
pseudonymous in nc
@kledd:
He left office the day after Santorum in 2007. Yes, it feels like he’s been “unemployed” for a lot longer.
With a two-year election cycle and a 24/7 news cycle, I think Nixon’s eight years now represents the very upper limit: you leave office, run once and perhaps get to run again on the buyers’ remorse ticket. Gingrich’s thirteen years of Amazon reviews, wingnut welfare and book tours haven’t helped his cause outside of the deepest South. The GOP might not nominate new and shiny, but it also doesn’t nominate people who’ve been on wingnut welfare for a decade.
Chris
@Viva BrisVegas:
What do you mean, how are they getting elected? They’ve had one election, in 2010, and they did pretty well: it’s mostly since then that people have really started to look askance. They were popular enough when they were just outside the tent bitching, but now that they’ve actually had to govern for a little while, well, turns out they suck at it. And people are noticing.
We’ll have to wait a couple more election cycles to see how things pan out, but just at this moment the wind doesn’t seem to be in their sails.
Chris
@Viva BrisVegas:
I’d add that in my personal opinion, the teabaggers actually hurt rather than helped their party in 2010.
It was an off-year election during the worst economic crisis in at least a generation: the out-of-power party was going to do very well no matter what. But the teabaggers were so fanaticized that they lost several elections by insisting on 100% Ideologically Pure candidates in very liberal areas, instead of letting the party run moderates who actually could’ve won.
If it hadn’t been for the teabaggers, I think the Republicans would control both houses right now. Their purity obsession cost them the Senate and probably a few House seats to go with it.
parsimon
@Viva BrisVegas:
I’m really not sure that will be the case. It’s going to depend a lot on whether the hard-core conservative voters come out to vote in the first place, in numbers large enough to offset the Democratic voters, who will be much more active in a presidential election year than they were in the mid-term elections in 2010.
amk
@David Koch: egg.sack.lee
What a steaming pile of shit from heilemann.
Monkey Business
I’ve written this comment at least three times, and in every scenario in which the GOP survives, not one of them includes them continuing on their current path.
They have no further right to go without becoming fringe.
Moderate, or die. That’s the extent of their options.
Based on what I’ve seen of the GOP, the former looks like the least likely of the two options.
SiubhanDuinne
@Will:
I’m at the point now that when I’m discussing politics with people, I blush a little and hesitate and lower my voice before I utter the name “Santorum.” That is one brilliant meme, that can so completely turn a surname into a dirty word.
SiubhanDuinne
@Spaghetti Lee:
Exactly. MCS and Ike wouldn’t be members of today’s Republican party. They’d be nice moderate Democrats.
superdestroyer
@Keith G:
The lowest fertility rate in the U.S. would be white upper class Democrats who live along the coasts.
White Republicans have a higher fertility rate than white Democrats at the same age. Of course, both are below replacement values and well below Hispanic fertility rates and slightly below black fertility rates.
The real question for politics is what happens when whites are less than 50% of the voters and when Hispanic become a large enough demographic group to influence more states even with the usual poor turn out for Hispanic voters.
superdestroyer
@Chuck Butcher:
It is a myth that minorities care at all about social conservative issues. Blacks have the highest church attendence rates in the U.S. and are the most liberal voting block in the U.S.
Please point out a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who have taken a conservative position on any social issue or admit that blacks are not social conservatives.
then do the same test for Hispanics or Asians.
superdestroyer
@Judge Crater:
What will happen is all of those current Republican voters will just move over to voting in the Democratic primary, which is the real election in the U.S. in most large states.
then the question becomes how all of those former Republican voters effect the DEmocratic party.
Chuck Butcher
@superdestroyer:
If you want to misconstrue what I wrote that’s your business, but that isn’t what I wrote or implied. “A good sized coterie” has nothing to do with your fucking myth which I agree is a myth. Since I bothered to mention replacements within the 27% it doesn’t take a hell of a lot of intelligence to not mistake that for referring to a big percentage of minorities.
Fucking kneejerk bullshit…
Keith G
@superdestroyer:
Except, of course, for that rather large group of church going AAs that put Prop 8 over the top…..and that is not a California anomaly. In my neck of the woods, church going AAs are definitely not friends of Dorothy.
You may wish to update your certainty.
CarolDuhart2
I think the confusion comes from the fact that while black churchgoers are socially conservative on some things, that conservatism doesn’t mean folks want to legislate or go out on “crusades”. And from what I read, it was really a combination of fail that lead to defeat: a poorly written proposition, Mormon money and scaremongering, and a lack of outreach about the bill.
But that does not mean they hate government like the Republican base does. Government has been a friend, and a lot of anti-government rhetoric comes out of resentment that minorities have been helped by it.
Shawn in ShowMe
@Keith G:
So holding 49 liberal positions and 1 conservative position makes you a conservative?
Marc
@mclaren: And that data would be from Gallup tracking polls taken in January-June 2011, right after the Tea Party wave crested. Before the debt ceiling fight, the payroll tax fight, the contraception furor, the GOP primaries, and everything else that sent the Republican brand into the shitter.
In other words, about as predictive as all those lovely polls of party affiliation back in January 2009.
Mino
@superdestroyer: What the current Republicans voters should realize is that they will have a much bigger effect on policy and governance if they just all start voting in the Democratic primary. Why not try to effect the government is a low turnout election instead of trying to hold back a demographic wave.
Duh. It’s already happening. The sane wing is not showing up in the Republican primaries.
Plus the corruption of the DLC by “Rhinos”.
samara morgan
@superdestroyer: but any white conservative babies over the IQ gradient turn liberal when they go to college.
In a way, its like the cukoos egg…..republicans are breeding high IQ future democrats.
Mino
@superdestroyer: Quotas come into fashion among Republicans.
superdestroyer
@Keith G:
All the vote on Prop 8 indicates is that blacks do not like homosexuals being ahead of them in the PC pecking order.
The Raven
@eemom: “A year from now […] a whole new set of circumstances that nobody can possibly foresee will be in place”
I think we can forsee just fine. The WSJ Republican/Conservative Democrat (aka “centrist”) coalition will continue its dominance of US national politics. The new politics of the Occupy movement will continue in whatever direction it is going. The banks and the insurance companies will still own the centrist coalition. The slow return of the economy to full employment will probably continue. In 2014 Obamacare will kick in, and people will find a whole new set of reasons to hate insurance companies. The screams will probably be audible on Mars and the expense may imperil the recovery. The decay of civil liberties both in the USA and globally will continue.
One actual wild card: war.
See, not too hard to predict, if you stop paying attention to personalities and start looking at factions.
superdestroyer
@Mino:
You should look up minority contracting programs in cities like Atlanta, Detroit, and Baltimore. Even in cities with few whites, there are still contracting, hiring, and promotion quotas for blacks.
superdestroyer
@The Raven:
It may actually be easier for the corporate moderates to manage everything in the coming one party state. As long as enough groups get their piece of the federal, state, and local government spending, enough voters may be content to let the status quo continue.
Mino
@superdestroyer: Well, Republicans’ll just have to change the language to read WASM instead. They won’t miss a beat.
kledd
@pseudonymous in nc: No, you run once for practice, to get your ticket punched, and then you run again and get nominated.
No voters are holding it against Santorum that he’s not in office now. Santorum gets to spend four solid years campaigning. Those other governors all have to govern. Every minute Chris Christie is arguing with legislators is a minute he’s not lining up Iowa precinct captains.
goblue72
@Keith – the myth of the gay marriage hating black voter was just that – a myth. The exit polls turned out to be way wrong (where have we seen that before????) –
http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.4863891/k.35FC/Driving_Factors_of_Prop_8_Vote.htm
Hawes
I’m more optimistic that whatever happens this is a mini-realignment as the Reagan Coalition fractures:
http://zombieland-nowbrainfree.blogspot.com/2012/02/end-of-road.html
Patricia Kayden
If Palin is the GOP nominee in 2016, the Dems take the White House again. The woman is coo coo for cocoa puffs.
Talk about a Dem permanent majority.
superdestroyer
@David Koch:
O’Malley is not an Ivy Leaguer (either undergraduate or graduate school). The Democratic Party has nominated an Ivy alumni in every presidential election since 1984.
If you want to find the next Democratic Party nominee, write down a list of all sitting Democratic Party governors and senators and eliminate the non-Ivy Leaguers. Whoever remains will be on the very short list to be president.
David Koch
@superdestroyer: really? how does that make any difference?
Bush was from Andover, Yale, and Harvard and in 2000, everyone said he was the kind of person they liked to have a beer with.
superdestroyer
With all of the push on credentials, academic education, and intellectual sorting, anyone who is not an Ivy graduates (and really just a Yale/Harvard/Princeton/Columbia graduate will be seen as unqualified by the Democratic Party voters.
Mondale was the last Democratic Party candidates who was not an Ivy leaguer. Do you really see another one.
Keith G
@goblue72: I read the link. It doesn’t bash the “myth” although it wants to. Yes, it makes a case that the voting margin was not as high as had been anecdotally reported, nonetheless:
So church-going African Americans were just as likely to leave political moderation and side with the haters as others.
No comfort there.
Keith G
@Shawn in ShowMe:
I am not sure there is a score card one can use for this. I will submit that it might make one less liberal than advertised.
Anyway, I was responding to this:
This was a social conservative issue that Blacks as a whole cared greatly about.