What's Next for the Republican Party?

[Queens Guy]

An openly gay Senator is elected in Wisconsin; States vote in favour of gay marriage, the legalised use of marijuana...voters have rejected Akin and Mourdock...

It seems to me that extremists tend not to get elected, that many Republicans are as liberal on social policy as Democrats, but that the tight score on the popular vote suggests that this election has not marked a significant change in anything other than the Hispanic vote, which in proportion is now more Democrat than it was in 2004; but I am saying this without a minute analysis of the figures.

Am I right in thinking that John Boehner is now the senior elected Republican, and that he is, in effect, the 'leader' -or the public voice- of this Party? I don't know if this means he will run for President in 2016, but I think it does mean that in the medium term, how his Band of Brothers in Congress work with the President, if they work at all, will be worth watching.

Do Republicans reinforce their conservative economics? Do they 'confess' that it is not what the people want, and find some new way of addressing economic policy? Do they realise that taking conservative positions on social policy is unpopular?

Some how or other, they have to find a way of getting voted in to the White House in 2016, and they need a charismatic, credible candidate. I would be interested to know how people see the next 18 months or so in the life of the GOP.

Yes, John 'Tanning Bed' Boehner, is the senior Republican. And 2nd in line to be President, God forbid both the President and the Vice President were killed or became incapacitated. It's President Obama then V.P. Biden, then Boehner, then Senator Harry Reid.

As you said Obama didn't win with much of a mandate. Obama won 49.9% and Romney won 49.3% of the popular vote.

In the 2010 election, the 'Tea Party' election, In the House of Representatives, the Republicans won 51.38% and the Democrats won 44.77% of the popular vote. (Every member of the House stands election every 2 years, so that may have been the temperature of the electorate that year). In the Senate, where only 1/3 of the members faced election that year, the Republicans won 49.37% of the vote and the Democrats won 43.98%. Much greater margins that Obama vs. Romney 2012. The Republicans also won the vast majority of the Governor races. (The Governor is the executive in charge of each State.)

Do they reinforce their conservative economics? Well, it seems that's what the electorate wanted in 2010. Romney was not a Tea Party favorite. Republicans did very well in the 2010 election. Very well. If Obama had been up for re-election in 2010, he probably would have lost.

So, did the electorate change that much from 2008 to 2010, and then again from 2010 to 2012?

Maybe it was the candidate. And the way he explained his positions to the masses. There are a lot of similarities in the economic situation of the USA when it was Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Reagan in 1976 and as it is this year with Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney. Romney was an unpopular candidate who was quite stiff. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, wasn't stiff. He seemed more 'approachable', and Reagan was able to get a large amount of 'traditional' Democratic voters to switch sides and vote for him.

So, I'm not sure the answer is that simple. With only .6% difference in the popular vote and slim margins of victories in the 'Swing States', it may have been Hurricane Sandy that made the difference. MSNBC host and Obama supporter Chris Matthews said "I'm so glad we had that storm last week." It took the focus off the economy and gave Obama the chance to fly to the storm on Air Force One and 'look Presidential' and 'concerned'. If the Hurricane had hit 3 weeks ago, perhaps FEMA's poor response and allowing Romney to refocus on the economy would have tipped the results in Romney's favor.

Just some thoughts.

I sincerely hope the President is successful as he faces the challenges of his 2nd term.

[broncofan]

The swing states were close, and the popular vote was close, but the whole question of "the mandate" that a President wins with his election to office is overblown. There a several ways to protect the minority vote, and they are indeed protected in the house and senate votes for legislators. However our executive power is more concentrated. I remember when the 2004 election came down to Ohio, President Bush won and said he had earned political capital and planned to spend it. He also said something about a mandate.

The election itself was in some ways a referendum on Obama's first term as the re-election of any incumbent is. This incumbent had to deal with an obstructionist senate who blocked various initiatives for stimulus spending and then blamed him for the state of the economy. I don't see anything in the Constitution or elsewhere that says his power as the Chief Executive is diluted because he won by a narrow margin. What sort of mandate did Bush win with his non-existent margin of victory in 2000? Did President Bush not have the authority vested in him to invade Iraq, against the will of nearly half of the electorate?

I understand and respect what you're saying Queensguy, but I must disagree. The President's results over the last four years were very much at issue, in the face of a united political party whose sole goal was to prevent him from obtaining a second term. And all the while they blamed him for the fallout from the previous disaster administration while thwarting his attempts to take corrective action. They did this not because of ideological differences but because they were committed to his failure and with it policy failures that threatened everyone. By overcoming those sinister attempts and winning the electoral college, he won his mandate to lead to the full extent that his office lawfully permits.

As for the Republican Party? Come back to Planet Earth. Understand that in the 21st Century gay-bashing, corporate cronyism, thinly veiled racism, greed, religious fundamentalism and militarism are becoming less popular and will be further stigmatized with each electoral cycle. Lick you wounds and return four years from now as decent people and you stand a chance.

[trish]

...he (Obama) won his mandate to lead to the full extent that his office lawfully permits.

[Ben]

"The White Establishment Is Now The Minority" - Bill O'Reilly

[broncofan]

"The White Establishment Is Now The Minority" - Bill O'Reilly

And the minority of Bill O'Reilly's white vibrator is not in his ass.

[broncofan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O'...ssment_lawsuit

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...bratorzone.htm

Sorry I forgot to source my last post

[Cuchulain]

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Conserv...P/10737435639/

I saw the short vid above on CSPAN today and nearly choked laughing. A handful of very angry CONs representing various extreme REICHwing groups blame Romney, repub leaders in the House and Senate and even Karl Rove for the election thumping because they were NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH.

These warthogs doubled down on their hatred of PBS, NPR, Planned parenthood, government regulation, taxes, abortion, gay marriage and anything else they could think of. They said that repubs who don't get on board must be replaced. No more 'RINOS', lol. All future repub candidates must be carefully coached on how to present themselves, what to say and how to react to questions. Damn, these poor freaks are angry.

[broncofan]

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Conserv...P/10737435639/

I saw the short vid above on CSPAN today and nearly choked laughing. A handful of very angry CONs representing various extreme REICHwing groups blame Romney, repub leaders in the House and Senate and even Karl Rove for the election thumping because they were NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH.

These warthogs doubled down on their hatred of PBS, NPR, Planned parenthood, government regulation, taxes, abortion, gay marriage and anything else they could think of. They said that repubs who don't get on board must be replaced. No more 'RINOS', lol. All future repub candidates must be carefully coached on how to present themselves, what to say and how to react to questions. Damn, these poor freaks are angry.

They do face a dilemma in that they want to implement all of these hateful policies but can't afford to alienate their constituents. If they move to the center they have a chance of winning but then they don't really get their way. So we see this reactionary shift to the right, which hurts their chances electorally, but what's the point of being Republican if you're going to be reasonable?

Yes, yes of course they lost the election because there were too many fraudulent liberals posing as Republicans not because the world is changing and people don't like their wedge issues, where they selectively represent a very small minority but turn enough people against each other to squeak out elections. They are walking a tight rope because to win they have to convince some decent people they have a social conscience so this play to their hardcore base is the opposite of good politics. If they are so uncompromising how do they convince one issue voters to vote for them; the person who doesn't want to pay taxes, who thinks gay marriage is a bridge too far, or who thinks government doesn't belong in the bedroom (for a meaningless cliche).

[broncofan]

I second the recommendation to click on Cuchulain's video. Once you open the link you are treated to all of these dour faces blaming their loss on all the wrong causes. I sincerely hope this introductory speaker Richard Viguerie gets a foothold in the party. This is honestly self-mockery at its finest.

LMAO- Brent Bozell to the press- "nothing personal but your profession was atrocious."

Then he discusses why so many Republican pundits thought Romney was going to win despite the fact that the polls universally favored Obama. He says why were Noonan and Hannity so wrong? His reason: it's because they couldn't believe America would go down the path to destruction.

No dipshit. Why did they ignore polling data? Because they're Republican shills posing as journalists doing what they've done for over a decade; letting their political biases overrule any logical faculty they may have. They ignored polls by independent organizations that had Obama winning because they didn't want to believe they wouldn't get their way and it was easier for them to pretend non-partisan agencies were in the pockets of liberals.

[robertlouis]

Is OMK on sabbatical or did he spontaneously combust at the result?