# Will The Republicans ever figure out why they lost? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 26, 2012, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224 "2012-12-26T21:33:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 70
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1381 "2013-07-13T19:09:11Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > So, now… “don’t\*\* regularly \*\*say insane things or look like morons” is the new high bar for the GOP team??? Think about that. You’re right. Bar waaay too high. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1382 "2013-07-13T19:56:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, I mean politicians who can be bought with earmarks or other parochial benefits into voting for bills they wouldn’t otherwise support. > > One of the positive things the Tea party did was end the practice of trading earmarks for votes, which is basically just bribery. > > The wikipedia definition: > > Logrolling is the trading of favors, or quid pro quo, such as vote trading by legislative members to obtain passage of actions of interest to each legislative member.[1] In an academic context, the Nuttall Encyclopedia describes logrolling as “mutual praise by authors of each other’s work.” In organizational analysis, it refers to when an entity assists others to promote and achieve their agendas, in the expectation that it will receive such support in exchange. That is not a form of corruption. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1383 "2013-07-13T20:16:57Z")
That is in fact the very reason politicians get elected, to help their constituents. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1384 "2013-07-13T21:23:03Z")
When money for one’s district is tied to voting for a bill you wouldn’t normally vote for, that’s corruption, IMO. Not to mention the earmarking process was itself corruption because earmarks had a tendency to go to campaign contributors or even relatives of Congressmen, rather than towards legitimate needs of the district or state. Jack Murtha, one of the most prolific earmarkers in Congress, and also one of the most corrupt: > **[John Murtha | Earmarks and campaign contributions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha#Earmarks_and_campaign_contributions)** > > Murtha was targeted by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington as one of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress. > In September 2006, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) listed Murtha under Five Members to Watch in its Second Annual Most Corrupt Members of Congress Report. The report cited Murtha's steering of defense appropriations to clients of KSA Consulting, which employed his brother Robert, and the PMA Group, founded by Paul Magliocchetti, a former s... There are honest porkers, Robert Byrd is a good example. But even when its honest, it’s still wasteful more often than not(did he really need a statue of himself? How tacky.) I’d note that the earmarking example is one way in which Republicans are on the side of the public. I’ve never seen a Presidential candidate willing to defend the process, and candidate Obama was an anti-earmark candidate. He vowed to veto bills with earmarks during the campaign, then immediately broke that promise. Fortunately, the Tea Party kept it for him. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1385 "2013-07-13T22:16:20Z")
I have even heard [Bachmann](http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/108244669.html)talking in favor of earmarks. Of course anything that even makes the president fool good indirectly will be considered and of course, they are not earmarks if they say so. [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/us-usa-congress-earmarks-idUSBRE82T10F20120330](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/us-usa-congress-earmarks-idUSBRE82T10F20120330) > [@](#): > > (Reuters) - The huge federal transportation bill was in tatters in early March when Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama posed a heretical idea for breaking through gridlock in the House. > > In a closed-door meeting with fellow Republicans, Rogers recommended reviving a proven legislative sweetener that became politically toxic a year ago. > > Bring back earmarks, Rogers, who was first elected to Congress in 2002, told his colleagues. > > Few members of Congress have been bold enough to use the “e” word since both the House and Senate temporarily banned the practice last year after public outcries about Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” and other pork barrel projects. > > But as lawmakers wrestle with legislative paralysis, there are signs that earmarks - special interest projects that used to be tacked onto major bills - could make a comeback. > > “I just got up … and did it because I was mad because they were talking about how we can’t get 218 votes,” Rogers told Reuters, referring to the minimum of 218 votes needed to pass legislation in the 435-member House. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1386 "2013-07-13T22:30:34Z")
And that’s a good thing. The President favored it. IT doesn’t make the President look bad, it makes him look GOOD that there are no more earmarks. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1387 "2013-07-13T22:43:12Z")
If you honestly believe only Dems did this, and Rs did not, I have a bridge (to nowhere, as it turns out) I’d like to sell you. You **can’t** be that politically naive, **can** you? ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1388 "2013-07-13T22:43:16Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > When money for one’s district is tied to voting for a bill you wouldn’t normally vote for, that’s corruption, IMO. > > Not to mention the earmarking process was itself corruption because earmarks had a tendency to go to campaign contributors or even relatives of Congressmen, rather than towards legitimate needs of the district or state. > > Jack Murtha, one of the most prolific earmarkers in Congress, and also one of the most corrupt: > > [John Murtha - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha#Earmarks_and_campaign_contributions) > > There are honest porkers, Robert Byrd is a good example. But even when its honest, it’s still wasteful more often than not(did he really need a statue of himself? How tacky.) > > I’d note that the earmarking example is one way in which Republicans are on the side of the public. I’ve never seen a Presidential candidate willing to defend the process, and candidate Obama was an anti-earmark candidate. He vowed to veto bills with earmarks during the campaign, then immediately broke that promise. Fortunately, the Tea Party kept it for him. Why not include Senator Ted Stevens? He was a major-tier porker. Or, was that because in Stevens being Republican, it invalidates your thesis that, “Democrats Bad, GOP Good”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1389 "2013-07-13T22:57:33Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > If you honestly believe only Dems did this, and Rs did not, I have a bridge (to nowhere, as it turns out) I’d like to sell you. You **can’t** be that politically naive, **can** you? Of course not. But Republicans were the ones who stopped it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1390 "2013-07-13T22:58:41Z")
> [@user\_hostile](#): > > Why not include Senator Ted Stevens? He was a major-tier porker. > > Or, was that because in Stevens being Republican, it invalidates your thesis that, “Democrats Bad, GOP Good”. Nah, I hate Ted Stevens. There were lots of Republican porkers and still are. The Tea Party was the primary catalyst as far as putting an end to it. Secondly, I notice no conservatives on this board defending earmarking as “just politics”. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1391 "2013-07-13T23:06:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Of course not. But Republicans were the ones who stopped it. [Really?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge) > [@](#): > > As a result, the US Congress removed the federal earmark for the bridge in 2005. Funding for the “Bridge to Nowhere” has continued as of March 2, 2011, in the passing of H.R. 662: Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 by the House of Representatives. Even better. > [@](#): > > \*\*After canceling the bridge, Palin’s administration spent more than $25 million to build the Gravina Island Highway, which would have connected with the proposed bridge. \*\*According to Alaskan state officials, the road project went ahead because the money came from the federal government, and would otherwise have had to be returned. Because “no one seems to use” this road, it has been called the “road to nowhere” by CNN, many local Alaskans, and hundreds of other media sources. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2013, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1392 "2013-07-13T23:08:51Z")
The earmark ban happened in 2011. I’m not disputing that Republicans were big earmarkers before the Tea Party wave election. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1393 "2013-07-14T05:40:04Z")
I’d like to submit this Megan McCardle post for your consideration: [http://meganmcardle.com/2013/07/12/why-i-think-the-gop-will-have-control-in-2017/](http://meganmcardle.com/2013/07/12/why-i-think-the-gop-will-have-control-in-2017/) She explains why she thinks the GOP will win in 2016, and history is on her side. The Democratic counterargument is that things are different now, but how many times do we hear that and it actually turns out to be true? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1394 "2013-07-14T11:16:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’d like to submit this Megan McCardle post for your consideration: > > [http://meganmcardle.com/2013/07/12/why-i-think-the-gop-will-have-control-in-2017/](http://meganmcardle.com/2013/07/12/why-i-think-the-gop-will-have-control-in-2017/) > > She explains why she thinks the GOP will win in 2016, and history is on her side. The Democratic counterargument is that things are different now, but how many times do we hear that and it actually turns out to be true? The “only 2 Democrats have been followed by another Democrat” is a weak, weak argument, just like any “only x has been elected after x” argument. Precedents like that are essentially historic coincidences- it’s just as useful to say “no President with an i in his first name has ever been followed by a President of the same party” (note- I have no idea if this is true or not). So her argument is pretty weak. This early, it’s essentially a crapshoot. I think looking at demographics is reasonable, but it’s still far from definitive. We’ll know in Nov 2016. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1395 "2013-07-14T18:12:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > You can’t gerrymander the statewide elections for Senate and governor, and the gerrymandering in the House isn’t what kept them in control. But you can gerrymander state legislatures. So what’s your point? > [@](#): > > There are simply more red districts than blue districts because Democrats only have appeal in big urban areas. You have stated and implied over and over that it is impossible to draw proportionately representative districts because Democrats are concentrated in urban areas. Bull Fucking Shit. And the number one proof that what you’re saying is untrue is that Democrats also have used gerrymandering to their advantage. But besides that, unless you can show some logical demonstration of why it is impossible to draw fairer or at least reasonably neutral district lines, I really think you ought to consider not saying this again. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1396 "2013-07-14T18:33:10Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’d like to submit this Megan McCardle post for your consideration: > > [http://meganmcardle.com/2013/07/12/why-i-think-the-gop-will-have-control-in-2017/](http://meganmcardle.com/2013/07/12/why-i-think-the-gop-will-have-control-in-2017/) > > She explains why she thinks the GOP will win in 2016, and history is on her side. The Democratic counterargument is that things are different now, but how many times do we hear that and it actually turns out to be true? If we’re looking at historical-pattern arguments, I think [this](http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/08/28/requiem-for-the-right.html) 2009 _Newsweek_ interview with Sam Tanenhaus about his then-new book [_The Death of Conservatism_](http://www.amazon.com/Death-Conservatism-Sam-Tanenhaus/dp/1400068843/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373826379&sr=1-2) is a more relevant analysis. > [@](#): > > **Meacham: So how bad is it, really? Your title doesn’t quite declare conservatism dead. > Tanenhaus:** Quite bad if you prize a mature, responsible conservatism that honors America’s institutions, both governmental and societal. The first great 20th-century Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, supported a strong central government that emphasized the shared values and ideals of the nation’s millions of citizens. He denounced the harm done by “the trusts”—big corporations. He made it his mission to conserve vast tracts of wilderness and forest. The last successful one, Ronald Reagan, liked to remind people (especially the press) he was a lifelong New Dealer who voted four times for Franklin D. Roosevelt. The consensus forged by Buckley in the 1960s gained strength through two decisive acts: first, Buckley denounced right-wing extremists, such as the members of the John Birch Society, and made sure when he did it to secure the support of conservative Republicans like Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Sen. John Tower. This pulled the movement toward the center. Second: Buckley saw that the civil disturbances of the late 1960s (in particular urban riots and increasingly militant anti-Vietnam protests) posed a challenge to social harmonies preferred by genuine conservatives and genuine liberals alike. When the Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan called on liberals to join with conservatives in upholding “the politics of stability,” Buckley replied that he was ready to help. He placed the values of “civil society” (in Burke’s term) above those of his own movement or the GOP. > > Today we see very little evidence of this. In his classic\* The Future of American Politics\* (1952), the political journalist Samuel Lubell said that our two-party system in fact consists of periods of alternating one-party rule—there is a majority “sun” party and a minority “moon” party. “It is within the majority party that the issues of any particular period are fought out,” Lubell wrote. Thus, in the 1980s, Republicans grasped (and Democrats did not) that new entrepreneurial energies had been unleashed, and also that the Cold War could be brought to a conclusion through strong foreign policy. This was the Republicans’ “sun” period. The reverse is happening today. The Democrats now dominate our heliocentric system—first on the economic stimulus, which is already proving to be at least a limited success, and now on the issue of health-care reform. These are both entirely Democratic initiatives. The Republicans, so intent on thwarting Obama, have vacated the field, and left it up to the sun party to accept the full burden of legislating us into the future. If the Democrats succeed, Republicans will be tagged as the party that declined even to help repair a broken system and extend fundamental protections—logical extensions of Social Security and Medicare—to some 46 million people who now don’t have them. This could marginalize the right for a generation, if not longer. Rush Limbaugh’s stated hope that Obama will fail seems to have become GOP doctrine. This is the attitude not of conservatives, but of radicals, who deplore the very possibility of a virtuous government. > > **Is there an analogous historical moment? Conservatives argue that this is 1965 and that a renaissance is at hand.** > I disagree. Today, conservatives seem in a position closer to the one they occupied during the New Deal. The epithets so many on the right now hurl at Obama—“socialist,” “fascist”—precisely echo the accusations Herbert Hoover and “Old Right” made against FDR in 1936. And the spectacle of citizens appearing at town-hall meetings with guns recalls nothing so much as the vigilante Minutemen whom Buckley evicted from the conservative movement in the 1960s. A serious conservative like David Frum knows this, and has spoken up. It is remarkable how few others have. The moon party is being yanked ever farther onto its marginal orbit. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1397 "2013-07-14T19:32:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The “only 2 Democrats have been followed by another Democrat” is a weak, weak argument, just like any “only x has been elected after x” argument. Precedents like that are essentially historic coincidences- it’s just as useful to say “no President with an i in his first name has ever been followed by a President of the same party” (note- I have no idea if this is true or not). So her argument is pretty weak. This early, it’s essentially a crapshoot. I think looking at demographics is reasonable, but it’s still far from definitive. We’ll know in Nov 2016. Really, there have only been a dozen presidential elections since the Civil Rights Act and the Republicans picked up the banner of racism. Except for the anomaly that was Reagan, Republicans have either barely won (Nixon I), won against an incredibly bad candidate (Nixon II, Bush I), or stolen an election W I& II). With demographics and social values going against them, they’ve won their last presidential election. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1398 "2013-07-14T23:07:45Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If the GOP wins the Senate, you’ll next be complaining about how unfair it is that there are more red states than blue states. The Founders gerrymandered! The state boundaries are nothing but arbitrary accidents of administrative, military, and legal history. Do you honestly think that the states of the United States represent genuine socio-historico-political nations? If you do, then you’re kidding yourself. Even in 1789, the idea that “Virginian” constituted a nationality distinct from “Massachusettsian” in the same way that “English” and “Welsh” were distinct nationalities was a shaky proposition. To the extent that there was some broad delusion that this was the case was put to bed decisively by the Civil War. We are as a nationality and as a people “American.” Period. If an American was to go abroad and claim, for example, “Texan” as his or her primary national identity in the same way that others would identify themselves as Canadian or Australian, I would consider him or her either a liar or a moron. So, to the extent that the states have some degree of sovereignty is a matter of legal, historical, and administrative accident, compromise, and convenience. It is in no way based on genuine nationhood. From that point of view, the state boundaries really are nothing but gerrymandered jurisdictions with some particularly characteristics, specifically: (1) Very difficult if not impossible to redraw as a practical matter, and (2) Occasionally favoring one party over another, as a matter of, again, historical accident. Furthermore, the idea that certain states are “red” or “blue” is so simplified that to draw any concrete conclusions from it is either a fallacy or deliberate misdirection. Every state has liberals and conservatives. Every state has Democrats and Republicans. Every region, every county, every municipality, every legislative district, and, as a practical matter, every voting ward has liberals and conservatives and Democrats and Republicans. Yes, they are unevenly distributed, but not to the extent that it actually means as much as it is often implied. I live in a very heavily “blue” region, municipality, and district, but I can guarantee you that if I went outside and started shouting, there would be “red” voters who would hear my voice. So don’t pretend that American geography holds some kind of moral lesson for politics. A nation is its people, not its arbitrary internal boundaries and not its population density. Painting a map red because of broad generalization of political trends is a trick, and a pretty cynical one. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1399 "2013-07-14T23:22:43Z")
Likewise, neither does race. African-Americans are the least likely to be conservative, but if you go into your average black church with 100 people, 10 of them are likely to be conservatives. With other ethnic groups, the percentage of conservatives is much higher, from one third to 40%. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1400 "2013-07-14T23:39:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Likewise, neither does race. African-Americans are the least likely to be conservative, but if you go into **your average black church with 100 people, 10 of them are likely to be conservatives**. > > With other ethnic groups, the percentage of conservatives is much higher, from one third to 40%. Not that severe. [Chart and article.](http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/02/04/196046/are-african-americans-conservative-or-is-ideological-self-identification-meaningless/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224.md?page=69) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224.md?page=71)