I’m sorry, but the pedant in me wants to say that, unless Rick and Rick are shooting off Roman Candles, you mean “Politician’s Flair”.
I tried to shut him up, but he’s cranky without his sleep.
Fireworks will do that.
Way too early to tell. In 1988, the Democrats suffered their 3rd straight loss with 3 fairly weak candidates with Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis. The lowlight of the 1988 Democratic convention was a long and boring introduction speech for Michael Dukakis. That speech was, of course, delivered by Bill Clinton.
I should hope Ferret Humping An Orange has had his fill of this game by now; which isn’t his kinda game anyway.
I’m baffled as to what these people think their endgame is. Republican strategists have to be privately shuddering at the kind of trends they’re seeing among women and young voters.
Are they thinking people are going to eventually “see the light?” I little doubt many of the Tea Party types will be more than happy to run martyr after martyr for their ideology, but other conservatives are only going to take so much.
Confident no, but it is fun to look backand see how many of us in 2004 were seeing an Obama presidency as a very real thing to likely come. Check outEva’s post, for example.
BG though? He was confident the other way.
It just seemed to me at the time that a young (by national-politics standards) freshman senator was not a good presidential prospect. And I expected the first AA POTUS to be more conservative, almost certainly a Pub, to overcome his obvious electoral handicap. I was happy to be proven wrong on both points, but the Pubs’ “inexperienced!” meme did not surprise me, and neither did the obvious subtext.
In 1972 the Dems were taken over by the more-or-lefty “New Politics” McGovern wing, and shifted focus – not to socialism or anything like that, but to “identity politics” and such things far outside the mainstream. It took them until 1992 to really recover from that electorally (the Carter Admin was a fluke precipitated by Watergate, and depended on the party showing a social-conservative Southern-good-ol’-boy face for the moment), and they finally did recover by letting the neoliberal DLC “DINOs” take the helm. The GOP might have to go through a similar process.
OTOH, if the Tea Party seizes control after a Romney defeat but than gets clobbered in 2014, there may be a complete decimation of both the Tea Party and chamelon-types allowing the consistent moderates like Huntsman, Kirk, or Rubio to take the helm.
Bloomberg might decide to run in 2016 although he’d be mocked for his neo-Prohibitionist policies. Huntsman even if the GOP goes too far to the right.
Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann is more likely-the former didn’t run this year and the latter while performing poorly avoided massive gaffes like Rick Perry. Santorum’s inconsistency on abortion and other stances will be driven home in the 2016 primaries should he actually have a chance (unlike this year).
Nonsense. After all the Tea Party went wild for Herman Cain and Congressmen like Allen West or Joe Wilson. The Tea Party, despite its faults, are generally colour blind and gender blind when selecting their candidates of choice.
I disagree.
Palin got plucked from obscurity in 2008 - she didn’t have some established base. She did take some steps to build a base up but if she was going to run 2012 was her year. By 2016, she’ll be further back in line behind all the runners-up from 2012. She’s like Dan Quayle - still out there but replaced by fresher faces.
Bachmann did make her move in this campaign. But all she did was show that she didn’t have what it takes. She now gets lumped in with Cain, Trump, Paul, Gingrich, Huntsman, and Perry (and that last one surprised me) - they put themselves out there and the voters gave them a clear no.
Santorum, on the other hand, did much better than expected so he “won” this campaign. He didn’t get the nomination but he showed he could win delegates all over the country. He moved up from the joke candidate crowd to the serious candidate crowd. In 2016, he’ll be able to start his campaign as a serious candidate.
And let’s face facts, Qin, your views on abortion aren’t the same as the general electorate’s. I won’t argue right or wrong but there is the issue of electability. Any candidate who took a pro-life position that you could fully support might as well save their filing fee.
I don’t know. How does a party “recover” from holding a House Majority for 40 straight years (1955-1995)? They held a majority in the Senate in all but 6 of those years.
And if they do come to the center, which part of the coalition is going to be the odd man out? Who are they going to build around?
Easy. We got George W. Bush because of a Bob Dole loss. And Mitt Romney is like George W. Bush. So we might get a George H.W. Bush. Now, who could that be?
The only prominent politician in the entire spectrum regardless of party that I can think of is Bloomberg. You can’t get more centrist than belonging to both parties and an independent within a decade. Every other prominent politician I can think of is less centrist than Obama. ETA which isn’t to say that it’d be a good choice. I don’t know a lot about him to say one way or another. Just enough to know that he’s more centrist.
Aren’t Bloomberg’s views on abortion somewhat of a dealbreaker in the GOP?
Unless things change dramatically, there are too many dealbreakers (abortion, gay marriage, nuanced views on taxes, evolution) that make it impossible for someone to be centrist as well as viable in the GOP. Currently the centrists either hide their nature (Romney) or remain nonviable (Huntsman).
Is there a GOP renaissance (or day of reckoning) on the horizon to change that?
I agree with this, except that I was responding to a post which was talking about how the Democratic Party would retrench if it lost, which granted was a semi-hijack.
I agree that Bloomberg could never get nominated for the GOP even if it lost big time this year and wanted a moderate. He probably couldn’t get nominated for the Democratic ticket either even if they try to retrench, but that has less to do with his views and more to do with his party-switching which would give his primary opponents too much ammo.
I still think Mitch Daniels is waiting for 2012. And I still think he’d win.
A close defeat in 2012, followed by doubling down on the crazy and getting crushed in 2016 might get things rolling.
This is my hope. I would love to have the opportunity to vote for a Republican again some day. I actually don’t think Romney would be a terrible president, if the current climate didn’t force him into the positions that he has had to take in order to become the nominee.
Mine too.
Not this, though. The unholy triumvirate of plutocrats, kleptocrats and theocrats has to go forever.
Let the Democratic Party become the new conservative party, and let’s get some actual leftists to be our left wing.
The GOP will claim it was because Romney wasn’t conservative enough, so they will move even further to the right.
Plus one of Romney’s biggest pluses was his ‘electability’, whatever that means. So if he doesn’t get elected, that puts that philosophy down the tubes.
I just hope the GOP radicalizes themselves into minority status (40-45% of the electorate tops) long enough for meaningful progressive legislation to get passed in the next 20 years. But who knows what the future will bring.