Yes, I think it’s entirely possible there will be a Tea Party candidate. That’s not to say there will be one, but given the financing someone may do that. It wouldn’t necessarily split the party outside of the presidential candidacy, but it could make a rational Republican look more desireable. The risk for the Democrats right now is losing the advantage they’ve gained after the government shutdown. If they start a pattern of bungling themselves then the independents looking for change may turn to an inoffensive Republican.
More than the Republicans probably; I understand that prostitutes do much bigger business when a Republican convention shows up than when a Democratic one does. As in “The Republicans are gonna have a convention here! We need to bus in more hookers!” Apparently Democrats have actual relationships.
So yeah; the Democrats are indeed fucked. Regularly. 
Do you see your error now?
Here’s the deal. If conservatives (or liberals) want to get an accurate assessment of the political situation in the country, they have to step outside of their comfort zone.
The modern media makes it too easy to live in a bubble. You can surround yourself with people who agree with your political views. And existing full time in such a surrounding gives you the illusion that your political views are universal.
You’re not going to get the complete picture on websites like American Thinker or Daily Kos - they’re aimed at a smaller audience.
So you need to decide: do you want to be comfortable or do you want to hear what’s true, even if it may be uncomfortable? Comfortable’s nice but only up until the moment when the bubble pops and you realize how much was going on that you weren’t paying attention to.
Cite.
No, pics.
…or the Straight Dope Elections forum.
Of course Obamacare is going to fail, because:
- Universal Health Care has never worked anywhere else in the World
- both Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann oppose it :eek:
- the Tea Party are always right :smack:
Not enough so to overcome the opposition-splitting problem, I should think. If Romney’s 2012 vote-share, even if augmented by 5% or even 10%, is divided between Joe Teaper and Fred Goper, Hillary Demer takes it in a walk.
There’s definitely a liberal bias on this board. But I don’t think too many liberals here got caught by surprise by the outcome of the 2012 election. That’s the kind of bubble-popping reality check I mentioned. It happened to conservatives in 2008 and 2012 and if they don’t start looking at reality it could happen to them again in 2014 and 2016. Conservatives need to stop preaching to the choir and start reaching out to voters who haven’t been voting Republican in the last few elections.
Romney is a bad choice for comparison, Christie is making himself more appealing and so far isn’t kowtowing to the Tea Party. But the Democrats haven’t really screwed themselves either, at least not yet. But if they do flip the house they’ll have two years to mess things up. All of this would be based on events that haven’t happened yet, that damn future is so unpredictable, it really gets in the way of good planning.
Shhh! Don’t tell them!
Or the 2010 election for that matter. Although I could be wrong and many liberal dopers thought there was no way that Congress would shift in 2010, I myself knew that the House would flip. But most of my conservative co-workers were so insulated in the bubble that they thought the Senate was a sure flip, too, which just wasn’t going to happen (the 2014 election is another story, even though it does seem that the GOP is doing its best to ruin their chances at flipping the Senate.)
But, something embarrassing always seems to happen when they try that.
We haven’t gotten down to your level yet.
Oooh. Burn.
Democrats can defend their strategy by the fact that it’s working. They don’t need to fix it. But Republicans have been losing most elections. They need to acknowledge they need to change something.
Yeah, I think it was the “well-respected by liberals” line that made me choke on the water I was drinking…