The Republicans of 2013 look a lot like the Democrats of 1989 -- shut out of the presidency, beholden to a shrinking base and on the wrong side of major demographic shifts in the country. Wait, the Pubs were on the right side of the demographics in 1989?
That's the argument two longtime Democratic strategists -- Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck -- make in an essay titled "The New Politics of Evasion" in the fall edition of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. For any Republican hoping to win back the White House in 2016, it's an absolute must-read. Because you can trust a couple of Democratic strategists to give the Republicans clear, unfiltered, good advice...
The first myth centered on the idea that Democrats had come up short at the presidential level in 1980, 1984 and 1988 because the candidates they had nominated -- Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis -- were insufficient adherents to liberal orthodoxy. If only the party had nominated a "true liberal," the argument went, they would have won. Sound familiar? Another similarity - they were all doofuses.
The second myth -- of mobilization -- is all about demographics. In the 1980s, Democrats insisted that if only blacks and Hispanics would vote in numbers commensurate with their share of the population, the party's nominee would win. They didn't, and Democrats didn't win. Fast-forward to today and some within the Republican Party are making that same losing argument about consolidating the white vote. And if the Pubs could figure out how to get dead people to vote five times, that'd be another good lesson from the Dems.
The final myth is that of the "congressional bastion," the idea that if the party out of the White House still controls a chamber of Congress and/or a number of state and local offices then it's evidence that all is well and major change isn't required. But, holding a House majority in a deeply gerrymandered set of districts is not the same as winning a national presidential election. And the 2012 election proved that the massive gains the GOP made in the 2010 midterms are more the exception than the rule.
The problem for smart Republican strategists is not figuring out what's wrong, but developing a real and pragmatic plan to fix it. Democrats fixed their problems of the 1980s with one man: Bill Clinton. And now, the interesting part.
The obvious analog to Clinton in the modern Republican Party is former Florida governor Jeb Bush. Bush, like Clinton, spent much of his formative life as a governor and, on issues ranging from education to immigration, has shown a willingness to break from Republican orthodoxy and the party's base. Has he also got a thing for not-all-that-attractive young wimmins?
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/23/2013 06:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
1976, GOP was dead from Nixon, Reagan was defeated by Ford as "too conservative", party was running as bigger better government, Ford's Whip Inflation Now, getting along by compromising with Congressional Dems, etc. Carter won in a landslide, nature of the voters had changed, become liberal...
Along came Reagan. Set all that on its head, Ran on "Government is not the solution, its the problem". Won big. Twice.
Hasnt been a republican run on that since.
Bush 1, voodoo economics, read my lips "No new taxes" plus the effects of Ross Perot's hillbilly feud with Bush
Dole: GOP establishment picks "Its his turn" (IHT)
Bush 2: Barely won as Social-con, not a small gov con.
Bush 2-2: Won as incumbent wartime CINC over a IHT Dem.
McCain: The prototypical "Maverick" moderate IHT Establishment beltway repub.
Romney: Establishment wanted a more moderate, Romneycare candidate, more of IHT.
Haven't run a real small government conservative since then at the federal level. State level? It works. Cruz TX, Lee UT, Paul KY, all very popular senators Rubio ran as one in FL and won (then veered off).
SO how about we try running another "Government is the problem" person instead of anothe moderate establishment mushy middle ?
#2
The problem for the Republican Party is twofold:
First: Racist Black vote. I define Racist vote by voting for a person because of his color instead of his capabilities. Both at presidential level and at city/state level (think Detroit) we have seen this again and again: while Whites, at leat a majority of gthem, habve no problem voting for a Black most Blacks automatically vote for a Black whatever his non-Balvck opponent and whatever his lack of results/caompetency. Obama's first term has been nefarious for Black byt they blindly voted for him.
Alan West could have been a solution but he underwent the same kind of character asssination of previous opponets of Obama
The second factor is lack of courage for enforcing vopte fairness: in many districts pof Massachusets particiiapation was well over 100% and, of course, Obama got over 90% of the votes in those highly "civical" districts. Now, I am not saying Republicans could havce won Massachusets, but many swing states and perghaps several non-swing states who weenbt for Obama wouldn't have gone were America halfa as serious about vote firanes than Geramny or even France.
#3
Nice observations, Spook. You'd think the Pubs would be thinking smaller government, and that the Tea Party (but who listens to them?) would be driving that boat. Our French friend also has some good - and obvious - points.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/23/2013 13:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Old Spook has the truth of it.
Tea Party points to the enduring popularity of Reagan's approach -- and to how far the Republican party has strayed from it.
#6
Reagan caused a lot of die-hard union democrats to cross the line and vote republican. There is something very powerful in his message but the folks in DC don't want to hear it.
#7
Wait, the Pubs were on the right side of the demographics in 1989?
Bush Sr. won in California in 1988. He lost in 1992 to Bill Clinton. After Clinton took over there was a HUGE demographic shift in California. I think y'all know what I'm talking about. It is highly unlikely that a Republican will ever win California again. Clinton used demographics to turn California into a blue state and the Republicans let him do it. What a bunch of fools.
My opinion is that it's time for the Tea Party to officially break from the Republican Party. I see no point in continuing to support the Republican party. Some of them may still pretend to be at least fiscally conservative but as long as they collude with Democrats on legislation like the Dream Act, the demography will continue to shift and Republicans will remain irrelevant.
#8
Keep in mind is that Reagan spent a lot of years "in the weeds" building up a base of support and honing his views. When the time came, he had a message and a coherent set of objectives.
#11
The only way -- only way -- the Pubs lose the House in 2014 is to fold like lawn chairs on the sequester and Obamacare debates this month. Which is precisely what they're doing.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/23/2013 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Well, then, that'd leave this big void for the Tea Party to just slide right in and take over.
No? [shakes head] Prolly not.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/23/2013 18:01 Comments ||
Top||
#13
That is why whenever a small government Republican comes around the Establishment Rino's, DemocRATs and media go total-war to destroy them.
True. That's why when Reagan grabbed the brass ring, the Establishment GOP saw that they either had to get on board (see: Peggy Noonan) or get left in the dust. The Democrats and the media did some damage, but the campaign had been on 'go' for a long time by then.
[BLOGS.TELEGRAPH.CO.UK] Can we go easy on the phrase "religion of peace" today? Of course most Mohammedans are horrified what may be the biggest slaughter of Christians by Islamists in modern times: at the time of writing, estimates of the number of dead at All Saints' Beautiful Downtown Peshawar ...capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly known as the North-West Frontier Province), administrative and economic hub for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Peshawar is situated near the eastern end of the Khyber Pass, convenient to the Pak-Afghan border. Peshawar has evolved into one of Pakistan's most ethnically and linguistically diverse cities, which means lots of gunfire. are ranging from 60 to 200. These faithful worshippers are the victims, first and foremost, of Islamic fanatics whose psychotic creed is held by a small minority of the world's Mohammedans.
But... they are ALSO the victims of our "ally" Pakistain's failure to protect Christians who have pleaded for protection against the religious cleansing that led to over 100 homes being torched in a Christian enclave of the city of Lahore in March by a mob furious at reports of alleged blasphemy. Don't tell me that every member of that mob was a paid-up, al-Qaeda jihadist: this is also tribal violence inspired by an extreme interpretation of Islamic teachings that is gaining traction in the developing world. What has the Pakistain government done to stop it? Not enough (if anything).
Come to that, how much have Mohammedan community leaders around the world done to condemn this sort of slaughter by their co-religionists? Not enough. Let's see if they manage more than their usual regretful throat-clearing today.
And HM Government? Not enough. I have a friend in the House of Lords who tries to persuade ministers to say more about the persecution of Christians. It's uphill work.
And the Churches? Yes, they have spoken out... once they've finished burbling about climate change. No wonder Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali had to resign his see before he felt he could speak freely about these crimes, unhampered by multicultural collegiality.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/23/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
the author didn't even mention the Kenya massacre or the Nigeria massacre that happened that same day
of course there were a lot of sunnis killing shia and shia killing sunni that day too
just another day of interfaith dialogue
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/23/2013 0:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
General Kitchener had the Islamic Mahdi's skull dug up and used it for a paperweight.....
that seemed to work.
Islam will, if they think they can.
You don't hear the majority of Moslems all over the world being shocked, do you? Stop and listen. No outcry from Mecca. No fatwas against the killing.....quite a bit of killing too actually..and ALL OVER the place. Moslem Values. THAT might have something to do with it.
Anybody PC incensed at my statements? Maybe your Mother was French? And always remember the Saudis are our friends.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The Republicans of 2013 look a lot like the Democrats of 1989 -- shut out of the presidency, beholden to a shrinking base and on the wrong side of major demographic shifts in the country.
The problem for smart Republican strategists is not figuring out what's wrong, but developing a real and pragmatic plan to fix it. Democrats fixed their problems of the 1980s with one man: Bill Clinton.
