I have no such recollection and I’m pretty sure that things didn’t happen that way. GHW Bush was a mild disappointment of a President and the Republicans lost a lot of moderates to Ross Perot. There was no great swing to the Democrats as there was in this election.
Man, this could end up being the longest thread ever!
The reason the Republicans lost is because they haven’t been behaving like true conservatives. The only true conservative on the ticket was Sarah Palin, and they muzzled her up, which was a mistake and lost them the election. What they need to do is nominate a true conservative like Governor Palin and pair her with another true conservative. I would suggest Governor Bobby Jindal, former Senator Rick Santorum or Ralph Reed, but I don’t think they are conservative enough. My suggestion is James Dobson.
So, 2012 is completely within the GOPs reach, if they pick true conservatives to run.
For your theory to hold, Rick, they should be learning like a bandit now having had their heads handed to them in 2006 and 2008.
Frankly, 2010 isn’t looking so hot with the Senate defenses going
Republican: 19
Democratic: 15
As I count. The smart money is that if the Democrats don’t get to 60 this time (and I think they’ll come up short) they’ll get there in 2010 and the last two years of Obama’s first term will be pretty one-sided.
Politically it’s a question of how much of the economic hardships of the next two years can Obama right (he’ll get the credit or the blame, either way) while allowing the congressional leadership to portray every problem on earth as something they’re having to clean up because of Bush and the republican congressional delegation.
Remember, it doesn’t have to be true to be politically effective. It’s better if it’s true but it is in no way required.
Also, to get some facts out there:
Governors (beginning 2009)
Democrats: 29
Republican: 21
If I recall correctly only Virginia and New Jersey will have a gubernatorial election next year.
State Legislatures
Democratic: 24
Republican: 14
Mixed: 12
Of the Democratic state legislatures 7 (29.1%) have Republican Governors.
Of the Republican state legislatures 4 (28.5%) have Democratic Governors.
Of the Mixed state legislatures 10 (83.3%) have Democratic Governers.
The simple fact is that if I was a Democratic political planner I’d be feeling pretty good right now about the next election cycle. A lot can happen, God knows, but the ground is well laid.
UHC is the new WMD.
Despite all the hoopla, every other first world nation manages to provide a functional public health system. It just is not that hard. When Obama has one up and running, the GOP will run with people knowing they’ll shut it down or hobble it. They have to do so because of who they are.
People love UHC and just like every other right wing party, opposition to it will keep the GOP out of office for one or more elections.
Mind you, although every other nation has been able to set one up that works, the ingenious US might not. So it could be a stand or fall proposition.
Wow, politically I can’t disagree with this any more than I do.
Regardless of one’s opinion about ‘true conservatism’ even a cursory examination of the last few election cycles indicates that the above is nonsense. While evangelical conservatism is still a strong voting base for the GOP there’s serious doubt as to whether it helps or hurts in the general election.
The recent trend shows the current growth market is conservative democratic candidates who profess fiscal conservatism and socially liberal (or laissez faire) positions. They like guns and balanced budgets and try to dodge abortion and such or simply claim that those are personal decisions for the people involved. It’s a way for those conservatives, who would normally be in the republican party but felt constrained by the need to toe a religious line and therefore moved democratic.
Jim Webb (D-VA) is a perfect example of this. Conservative, pro-military man, one time Reagan appointee, and now a Senator with a D next to his name.
If the republicans nominate any of the candidates you name (Palin, Reed, Dobson, or Santorum) the end result will be an Obama win of 450 electoral votes or more and the wholesale defection of large members of the party to somewhere … anywhere … else. Recovering from that WILL take 20 years.
Oy!
Excellent post. I read it with great interest and nodded my head in agreement all through.
Well done. A friend of mine, who is an actual economist(!), has said much the same for some time and no one seems to listen much to her, either. But you know what? You’re right. As in “correct”, not “Right”. Keep up the good work.
[to Johnathon Chance] it’s a whoosh.
I suspect this is actually what will happen. The Republicans will nominate an extremely evangelical ticket and Obama will win a crushing victory.
In 2016, they’ll get their shit together and put forth a star candidate.
Yeah, that’s always the excuse, isn’t it? “Liberals didn’t win, conservatives lost.” “This is not a failure of conservatism, but a failure on our part to follow it.” “America is a center-right nation.”
Please. If Palin had run her mouth more, we’d have won Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Georgia.
Bwahaha! Senator Man-on-dog isn’t conservative enough? The former leader of the Christian Coalition isn’t conservative? Please, please nominate Dobson for President. You’ll lose in the biggest landslide since 1984.
Yeh, now that she’s recovered from the horrors of moving she’s back in fine form, isn’t she?
- waves to Oy! *
I was going to suggest Larry Craig or perhaps Katherine Harris next. Or maybe Reverend John Hagee. But fine. Ruin my fun.
But seriously, the idea that Republicans haven’t been conservative enough is being espoused all throughout the conservative punditry and blogosphere. If that’s the direction the Republican party wants to go, I’m sure as hell not going to stop them.
My apologies, BrightNShiny. You emulated your target too well, it seems. 
No worries.
Yeah, I’m afraid Lamar is right. I didn’t take Clinton that seriously. (Of course, I’m from Rush Limbaugh’s home state.) I was used to Republican dominance in my state politics, I accepted that there were two major parties, & I saw the Perot movement as an ascendant challenge to the two-party system; I certainly didn’t think we were in for a Democrat-Party age.
Now? I think Obama could be another JFK in himself. But if he reaches for it, he could be another FDR; mostly because W Bush makes Herbert Hoover look like a good president.
This clip here* may sum up why the GOP is in trouble. Or not. Ignorance doesn’t look like it’s going to go out of style any time soon. The old faces may change, the buzzwords/wedge issues may change, but the ignorance will always be there to be exploited by the ruthless.
And when you look at history, that is the one quality that is shared by successful claimants to power: ruthlessness. I believe that’s what explains why the Democrats have so much trouble getting and holding on to power. Our entire political philosophy is rooted in not being ruthless (this does not mean that all individual members of the party live up to that philosophy), in fact being the opposite of ruthless - compassionate, at a state level. It would be terrific if we were the civilized society we’d like to believe we are. Unfortunately, we aren’t nearly as close to it as some of our western European allies, so we lose a lot of elections.
IMO, Obama has just enough ruthlessness that there’s a good chance he’ll be able to stay in office for two terms. Let’s hope it’s not so much that we don’t want him for two terms!
*It’s about 5 minutes long, but it’s important to watch it all the way through, as the best parts come at the end. Presumably both Mika Breszinski (the anchor) and Pat Buchanan (right) are conservatives, while Richarcd Wolfe (left) and Lawrence O’Donnell (down) are liberal.
Every successful leader sows the seeds of his own destruction, because once a President or Prime Minister solves a huge problem, the people do NOT (and probably SHOULD not) remain grateful to him and his party forever. Rather, they turn their attention to other problems, and may find that the opposition party’s positions are more appealing on those subject.s
FDR and the New Deal helped make America prosperous again… and newly prosperous Americans started to worry about things like high taxes, which led many of them to vote Republican again.
Winston Churchill beat Hitler… which meant that the British public no longer had to worry about foreign affairs, and could start voting on the pocketbook issues again. Hence, the election of Clement Attlee, just when Churchill should have been at the peak of his popularity.
Traditional Democrats turned to guys like Ronald Reagan and Rudy Giuliani because of high taxes and high crime. Well, here we are in 2008: taxes and crime are low, and nobody’s too worried about those issues. A Republican who campaigns on those issues is ASKING to get clobbered by Democrats who have moved on to addressing other concerns.
Right now, Obama and the Democrats are in an enviable position… but wait! What IF Obama does a great job of solving our financial and economic crises early on? Will people remember and reward him in 2012? Maybe… or maybe with that issue out of the way, people will have the luxury of voting on the social issues, which could HURT Obama.
You never know.
Running on bogus issues like Ayers and Khalidi is equally irrelevant - just less obviously so.
The chances of his doing that soon enough that people don’t take it into account in 2012 are slim and none. And if he does, we’ve still got to deal with rising health care costs, climate change and stuff.
It’s going to be awhile before we have the luxury of choosing a leader on the basis of relative trivia again.
They can always go into deep, deep denial. You know, just like all the people who though Ayers was an issue this time around.
Re 2012 and counting chickens:
Apart from the influences of national and world events we have no way of anticipating, there is the enormous capacity of the Democratic Party to screw up.
Never underestimate it.