Obama was an extremely vulnerable president. Romney was a laughably awful candidate, way, way WAY worse than Bush. I mean, honestly, Romney just really was that bad. And Obama squeaked by.
This was not a Democratic victory as much as it was a Republican loss. But that doesn’t matter to me, I’m very, very glad that a slim majority in our country voted for Obama no matter what the reason.
This is an extremely insightful post. There are still some liberal Democrats, but there are essentially no moderate republicans that go by that name anymore. They are all now called Democrats. All that’s left on the republican side of the aisle (at least nationally) are extremists.
May I suggest that we NOT help them? Let the GOP figure out their own damn problems. I, for one, actually hope that they continue pandering to the tea-party troglodytes forever. Thump those Bibles, lower those taxes for rich people, spread that fear of cultures and people different from your own! That’s the ticket! Good work, keep it up.
This is exactly correct and why I’ve been voting Democratic more and more lately. And it’s exactly where the Republicans need to go back to if they want to be winning national elections ten years from now.
And they will to, unless the anti-corporate wing of the Democrats start a new party first.
Er, what are “our” policies? (BTW, I am also a Republican.)
The entire point of filibustering is to prevent a bare majority vote from taking place - and neither side wants to get rid of it, as they know they will need it some day. That being said, if the Democrats can get 55 votes in the Senate, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them change the rules to reduce the percent needed to end debate from 60% to 55%.
Can anybody agree on what needs to be done - and what needs to be done first? How about a nationwide fiber-optic network effort? And how many “bridges to nowhere” are going to be built?
Er, how does the argument move away from “who to tax” if the Republicans choose the taxes to increase?
Translation: pretend Roe v. Wade never happened. What’s next - pretend Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka never happened either, and let states handle school integration?
Are you sure you are a Republican? Because I’m a liberal Democrat, and I agree with everything you said. And I’m pretty sure Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes would as well, as I’ve heard them say the same stuff, particularly #3.
Commit to the fact that it is the Constitution and not the Bible that runs the United States.
Understand that a party should be inclusive and not exclusive. Why be dismissive of Pubs that are pro-choice, pro-SSM or pro-regulation?
Introduce a comprehensive budget that involves tax reform (cuts where needed and increases where needed) for an overall tax increase and spending cuts.
Return to the federalist system. It will never be like it was pre-New Deal but instead the Feds help states with their programs rather than mandate that every American is doing the exact same thing.
Develop an immigration policy that makes sense. Not open borders but allowing people that are hard workers and law abiders to live here and contribute.
Set up a worker program so that there is a way for people to come here and work for hard-to-fill jobs.
For the existing illegal immigrants, do not offer amnesty->citizenship but instead a way to apply for legal residency.
Amend the Constitution to prevent anchor babies yet (like in the case of Wong Kim Ark) babies born to legal residents have citizenship jus soli.
Actually patrol the border. Use the army and drones if you have to.
Understand that personal liberty is not a bad thing as long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others.
It is possible to be tough and compassionate (see immigration reform). For example, require everyone to vote to prove citizenship and provide cheap easy ways to do that. Have Voter ID laws and make sure everyone who wants one has government photo ID.
Which brings to (what I understand to be) That Don Guy’s first point:
ISTM that most of these proposals for the Republican party are so popular here because they amount pretty much to “become Democrats”.
So I think people who believe this to not be the case need to distinguish between their proposals for the Republican party and what they see as the mainstream Democratic party positions. Otherwise the whole thing is pointless. The Democratic Party already exists.
What “uphill battle” are you talking about? Six months ago, everyone was saying “no incumbent president has ever won re-election with an unemployment rate above 8%”. The conditions were very favorable for a Republican victory.
The one who faced an uphill battle was Obama. Your failure (and that of others like you) to recognize that is the first step toward losing in 2016, too.
Obama has been ahead in the polls almost throughout. Surveys have consistently shown that most people believed that he would win. And Intrade’s odds have always had him at over 50%. At no point has Obama not been the favorite.
That has nothing to do with my point. Obama was fighting uphill with tanks and mechanized infantry; Romney was coming downhill with horses and bows-and-arrows. Of course the polls would pick Obama in that battle. It doesn’t mean the ground was sloped in his favor.
And it’s counter-productive to keep such rules because the majority party can blame the minority of obstructionism. Better to give it up now when no one can call it a power grab than to take it later.
We have a bureaucracy to manage priorities and a lot can be delegated to the states (who are fiscally constrained against a providing stimulus when it’s needed).
Because if the Republican-sponsored tax increases are anything close to reasonable, the Democrats won’t waste political capital arguing against them.
You’ll have to explain what your point is, because I’m not seeing one.
I’ve been Republican since I started voting in the early 90s. My views have remained mostly constant, but the parties have moved around a lot. The use of “liberal” and “conservative” don’t mean much to me, and the parties used to have members of both labels. I would consider myself “liberal” in the same sense that The Economist uses the term, but no one really uses it that way in the U.S.
(I’m not familiar with the two people you mention.)
That’s because the Republicans have allowed the Democrats to take over our former positions. We need to be focused on policy not denying legislative wins to the Democrats.
By the way, I agree that Obama has been the favorite to win reelection for a long time. Some Republicans (the ones in lala land) ignored the evidence (and still are). Some Democrats ignored it because they wanted to keep their electorate worried enough to vote (and now are pushing an against-the-odds narrative to strengthen their mandate). And the media ignored the evidence in order to keep viewers watching the horse race.
These don’t compute. Few if any of the policy recommendations you outline represented mainstream Republican positions in the early 90s or any time since.
Hey, I’m enough of an egoist that I want to be right. But I’m also a loyal enough Democrat that I’m not gonna clue the GOP in to what they can do better forever.
But, it’s all subjective, as you say. Saying Obama won and the Republicans couldn’t capture seats that should have been foregone conclusions is just “one way of looking at things,” right?
Ok, GOP, i’ve said my piece, but you know better. Keep on keepin’ on. Ain’t no skin off this Democrat’s ass.
It’s like in your head you have this notion that if you posted the Secret Formula to GOP Success on this MB, eager Republicans who hang on to your every word will immediately report up to the senior levels of the party that “Kimmy_Gibbler has just revealed the way to the Promised Land” and they will spring into action implementing your suggestion as to what they can do better, with disastrous consequences for the Dems.
I might almost find this egotistical. Oh wait, you already copped to that …
Common ground at last! The GOP will be the party of snark, devising nicknames like “O’Bozo” and putting on variety shows on Fox News and at House of Representatives hearings.
The Democrats will be the party of the Presidency (check), the Senate (check), and the federal judiciary (filled by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate — or in other words, check and mate).
Maddow is the most popular of the MSNBC hosts. She was the first openly gay Rhodes scholar, getting a Phd in Political Science.
Hayes hosts 2 hour political discussion shows on Saturday and Sunday in MSNBC. He is the author of “Twilight of the Elites”, a book I recommend and an editor of The Nation.