Well, you’d better hope you’re wrong, because if you’re right, Mitt Romney’s the next President.
Hardly. The Republican voter would gladly vote for Satan himself if he had an (R) next to his name. What it comes down do is that we know how 44 states plus DC will vote. Of the other 6, you’ve got 45% who are going to vote for Obama, 45% who are going to vote for the Mitt-bot, and 10% who don’t yet give a shit. It’s those 10% of voters in the six states in play that will determine the winner, not the Rush Limbaugh listeners.
But didn’t you say that Romney bought the nomination? Why won’t he buy the Presidency? He has been outspent thus far, but he’s outraised Obama in the last two months and may be able to swamp him in the home stretch.
The nomination process is mostly sequential: you outspend other candidates state-by-state. Romney may be able to outspend Obama in swing states with a poisonous quantity of misleading attack ads the final few weeks, but still he’ll need the exact right strategy of where to outspend him. In the primaries, it’s a little easier to know where you need your spend your money and when.
Because no thoughtfull, intelligent cultured Republican can win an election anymore than a pro-life democrat. America is going to hell, and all people who read know it.
Cite? Preferably taking this into account?
Oh, without a doubt. Someone linked the following vid on youtube. I haven’t watched it, but judging from the title alone it’s pretty clearly meant to be dissension sowing demagogic rhetoric designed to arouse isolationist feelings in the already beleaguered working class. Almost have to give him kudos for candour.
Here’s a more honest representation of his stance.
Romney was simply the best organized and most funded primary candidate. He had the full support of the Washington establishment GOP insiders. He was also the only major candidate with GOP presidential primary experience other than Ron Paul. The social conservative votes were split among more than one non-Romney in earlier primary states. The TEA party didn’t throw its weight behind a single candidate…the support was divided. The taxed-enough-already types generally supported Romney while the right wing nutcase TEA Party members liked Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, or Perry.
I personally liked Gary Johnson and, to a lesser extent, Jon Huntsman as candidates, but they didn’t have the organization and insider GOP support needed for a winning campaign.
What’s wrong with businessmen or billionaires? He certainly didn’t try being a demagogue or anything.
Well not a TP leader, but Marco Rubio was a Tea Party candidate without being unpalatable to centrists.
The trouble with being on the right wing extreme is that you don’t see just how far right the Republican Party has become and you don’t see the utter disgust that true centrists have for ANY Teabagger.
Given that Republicans still win elections even though they move further to the right, why should they stop?
Is there some unwritten obligation for the Republicans to be centrist? Does this also apply to the party that booted its 2000 VP standard bearer for not being liberal enough?
You mean Joe Lieberman (I-Aetna)? The traitor that campaigned for McCain?
The Republicans can be as exteme as they want. If they want to limit their electorate to hayseeds, rednecks, morons, and bigots, they’re off to a great start.
If that’s enough to win elections, why shouldn’t they? 40% of the country self-reports as conservative. Doesn’t take much to get 11% more. Only 20% of the country self-reports as liberal. The obligation is on Democrats to move to the center if they want to win, which is why they’ve been saying “middle class” over and over for the past few years. If they say it, maybe they’ll actually win the taxpayer vote for once.
But it’s not enough to win elections. The Republicans are tied tied themselves to a shrinking demographic. There just aren’t going to be enough old uneducated whites to win the presidency any more.
The “taxpayer vote”? WTF is that? The ones who pay the greatest percentage of their income in sales taxes? Democratic voters. The ones who pay the greatest percentage of their income in property taxes? Democratic voters.
Waiting for the Republicans to experience demographic doom is foolish. It’s pure conjecture and there’s all sorts of reasons why it probably won’t matter.
With African-Americans declining as a share of the population nationally, with second and third generation Hispanics more and more identifying as white, and with the Asian population growing faster than any other, and whites ceasing to be a swing group and voting more monolithically Republican, the Democrats need to be the worried ones.
If it makes you feel better to whistle by the graveyard, please do so.
If it makes you feel better to believe in a fairytale rather than actually try to persuade voters to support liberal candidates, you’re welcome to it.
How about the fact they usually don’t win elections? Sure, Ronald Reagan was incredibly popular but what’s happened since Reagan? Bush got elected in 1988 by promising to be four more years of Reagan. He couldn’t live up to that and the Democratic candidate got more votes in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2008. The only election the Republicans have won since the Reagan era was 2004 with an incumbent President, who won by the smallest margin of victory of any incumbent in American history.
Republicans need to ask themselves if Americans love Republicans so much, why do they keep voting for Democrats instead?
You are forgetting Congressional elections. I never said that Republicans are dominating, only that they are winning about half the time, which is what a party should be doing. That’s the proper tradeoff between ideology purity and winning elections: if you pander too much and win all the time, you don’t end up standing for anything. If you are too ideologically pure, you never win. If you win about half the time, you’ve got just the right mix.
If we’re talking not about Republicans as such, but about those who fall into the “Staunch Conservatives” grouping (as distinct from “Main Street Republicans”) in the Pew Political Typology, then, yes, they are demographically doomed; they are the oldest of the groups (61% of them are over 50), and most of their children and grandchildren will never think quite the way they do. The GOP will endure, but the Tea Party movement has a limited half-life.
I’d agree on the social conservative part of it. Economic conservatism is far more robust, and gaining all over the world. Personally, I’d love the Republicans to drop the culture war crap, it needlessly turns people off that would otherwise be gettable.