Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Baraka_Guru · Aug 20, 2014

Is it giving votes or giving rope?

rogue49 · Aug 21, 2014

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

Is it giving votes or giving rope?
Click to expand...

Good question...while the potential implication could benefit and push the GOP agenda,
they have a poor tendency to overplay their hand and it boomerangs on them.

There is a balance...and the public & media will take someone to task for doing something stupid or excessive.

rogue49 · Sep 12, 2014

You better watch out, you may get what you wish for...

Three reasons Republicans may not want to capture the Senate
By Linda Feldmann - September 11, 2014

Control of the Senate is the big prize in the November midterms. Increasingly, the Republicans’ prospects are looking good.
All the GOP incumbents running for reelection survived their primaries, shutting out tea party-backed challengers who might have scared away moderate voters; Republicans have far more opportunities for pickups (11 seats) than do Democrats (three); and they're already strong favorites to win three of the six seats needed to net a majority: South Dakota, Montana, and West Virginia.
Election forecaster Nate Silver gives the GOP a 62.2 percent chance of retaking the Senate. Another nonpartisan handicapper, Stuart Rothenberg, says he expects “a substantial Republican Senate wave in November, with a net gain of at least seven seats,” and wouldn’t be shocked by more.
If Republicans do capture the Senate, isn’t that great for them? In many ways, yes. They’d get to set the Senate agenda, for starters. But winning also brings risks. Here are some:

1. Republicans might learn the wrong lesson
If the GOP retakes the Senate, it will be sorely tempting for some party members – particularly anti-establishment conservatives – to conclude that the party is in good shape for 2016 and doesn’t need to change its approach.
There are two dangers associated with that. One, the Senate “map” in 2016 favors the Democrats; there will be 23 Republican seats up compared with just 10 Democratic seats – the reverse of this cycle (21 Democrats and 15 Republicans). So what works this year doesn’t necessarily translate to 2016.
Two, the electorate will be different in two years. 2016 is a presidential election year, and many more people vote in presidential years than in midterms. Demographically, marginal voters tend to be Democrats – young adults, minorities, single women. This year, the Republicans have little incentive to woo Hispanic voters, but every incentive to woo them in 2016. They probably can’t win the presidency without doing better with Hispanic voters than GOP nominee Mitt Romney did in 2012: 27 percent.
So if the Republicans win the Senate this year, the extent of the party’s crisis over Hispanic votes will be less apparent than if they fail to win the Senate.

2. Republicans will have a bigger part of the 'Washington dysfunction' narrative
Democrats have tried hard to pound the “Do-Nothing Congress” for its failure to, well, get much done. They blame the Republican-controlled House as well as Republicans in the Senate, who have considerable power, even in the minority. But Republicans’ easy reply, for now, is that Democrats control the Senate – and that Sen. Harry Reid (D) of Nevada, the majority leader, seems to enjoy making life miserable for minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
If the Republicans retake the Senate, their ability to blame Democrats for any continuing dysfunction will be greatly reduced.

3. Republicans will hurt their chances of winning the presidency in 2016
To be blunt, an important element of the 2014 midterms is positioning for the next presidential race.
If Republicans win the Senate, public expectations will rise for their ability to “get things done.” But with President Obama still in the White House for two more years, the best Republicans can probably hope for is small-ball stuff. Major immigration reform or tax reform is probably too much to hope for. It’s possible that a fully Republican-controlled Congress could put approval of the Keystone XL pipeline on Mr. Obama’s desk, and if he vetoed it, they might muster enough votes for an override.
But the main thing for Republicans would be to show that they know how to govern, and not just oppose things. And that could be difficult in a continued world of divided government – particularly if the far right really throws its weight around.
Click to expand...

One thing I do know, from just observation and experience, #1 is likely.
The GOP always seems to take the ball...and run with it HARD, even overkill. (if not the wrong way down the field)
Having just won by a nose, "We have a Mandate!"

ASU2003 · Sep 12, 2014

The problem is that the Democrats have no game plan and aren't putting up any opposition to the narrative the right-wing media is painting. I'm not sure what the Democrats agenda is. Do they want to scare the Dem base into coming out because they are worried about a landslide? Are they playing for 2016 and taking the congress back along with the Presidency and then passing so many things that Fox News explodes?

Where is the ground game? Run half-hour long 'documentaries' on how bad the local congressman is from each district and what you will get for the next two years if you vote for them. There are at least 50 of them in districts like I live in that should be in play.

But no, all they can do is beg a few times a day for money. What they will do with the money, and what their plans are for Domestic policy, I have no idea. Immigration & min wage doesn't impact me much. And even then they haven't sold me or the American public on a real full plan and one that can shut down the naysayers.

rogue49 · Sep 13, 2014

ASU2003 said: ↑

The problem is that the Democrats have no game plan and aren't putting up any opposition to the narrative the right-wing media is painting. I'm not sure what the Democrats agenda is. Do they want to scare the Dem base into coming out because they are worried about a landslide? Are they playing for 2016 and taking the congress back along with the Presidency and then passing so many things that Fox News explodes?

Where is the ground game? Run half-hour long 'documentaries' on how bad the local congressman is from each district and what you will get for the next two years if you vote for them. There are at least 50 of them in districts like I live in that should be in play.

But no, all they can do is beg a few times a day for money. What they will do with the money, and what their plans are for Domestic policy, I have no idea. Immigration & min wage doesn't impact me much. And even then they haven't sold me or the American public on a real full plan and one that can shut down the naysayers.
Click to expand...

Well, I think they've figured it out...the question is can they do it in time.
They'll need to get out the vote like crazy.
As Pelosi said on Bill Maher last night...it's about getting out the vote. Problem is, many Dem voters have no idea there is a mid-term election, they only are aware of a Presidential election. Or just don't make the effort.

So if, they're smart...they'll push all their cards and money into the pot for advertising and a ground-game in getting voters to the polls. (and prevent games, fear & confusion by the GOP)
Question is...will it be in time?
Are they waiting for an October hail-Mary? To hide the effort from the GOP? Or are they just that disorganized and passive.
My feeling it's a bit of all of the above.

We'll see big movements and plays in October.
All the Dems have to do is block the GOP in the red zone...and they can keep the Senate.

But all the GOP has to do is ironically the Obama adminstration mantra, "Don't do anything Stupid".
I wonder if they can...

ASU2003 · Sep 13, 2014

It isn't just about getting out the vote, it is about giving voters a reason to vote for you. They have them, they just don't put it out there.

Call the Republicans on the lies they and their media allies have been putting out there as false. Expose the problems with doing things their way. Say if you don't like having the government help you, then you aren't patriotic and don't want to improve America... Show what happens when you have little government oversight and how the little guy gets screwed. If they don't like something like Obamacare, call them on it and say "what would you do to improve citizens health and reduce the numbers without insurance?"

The Daily Show 19151 Highlights - Video Clips - The Daily Show | Comedy Central

But, they also need to work on implementing the ideas they have and making sure they work the way they should. They have to make sure that the different groups in the Democratic tent all get along together and help each other out. Along with working with each group to come up with a plan for what should be done on immigration, environment, labor, farmers, scientists,women's issues, GLBT issues, etc...

rogue49 · Sep 14, 2014

ASU2003 said: ↑

It isn't just about getting out the vote, it is about giving voters a reason to vote for you. They have them, they just don't put it out there.

Call the Republicans on the lies they and their media allies have been putting out there as false. Expose the problems with doing things their way. Say if you don't like having the government help you, then you aren't patriotic and don't want to improve America... Show what happens when you have little government oversight and how the little guy gets screwed. If they don't like something like Obamacare, call them on it and say "what would you do to improve citizens health and reduce the numbers without insurance?"

The Daily Show 19151 Highlights - Video Clips - The Daily Show | Comedy Central

But, they also need to work on implementing the ideas they have and making sure they work the way they should. They have to make sure that the different groups in the Democratic tent all get along together and help each other out. Along with working with each group to come up with a plan for what should be done on immigration, environment, labor, farmers, scientists,women's issues, GLBT issues, etc...
Click to expand...

The problem with this are the Dems ability and willingness to put something out there...and the attention span of the larger volume of voters.
While the GOP seems unashamedly willing to put up media lashing out at the Dems, opposing agenda and the current Administration...the Dems seem almost passive in comparison.

And the GOP has got the knack and momentum on the spin game...the Dems won't be able to contradict this enough in a month and a half time frame.
Plus the media won't post it or promote it...they only chew on controversy.
Little spats or spin pieces back & forth don't go up on the evening news or morning papers...or web boards.

And most voters only "register" in their head when they need to vote for President.
Anything else doesn't move them to the voting booths...ads and campaigns are just blurs in the mass of noise. Like you start ignoring kids constantly screaming and yelling.

The only thing they can do is get out the vote...just get them to the polls.
Convince them to take those hours of their time...and inconvenience...in the middle of the week. (losing money at jobs too...) that it's worth that to go vote. (America has got to be the most inconvenient voting rules...)
The more you can get them out...the more you'll likely JUST tip the balance on those "on edge" races.

It just might stop the GOPs advantages...or at least blunt it for this year.
This would be the best use of their funds and efforts in a month's time.

The GOP is slowly "dying" but they're going down kicking and screaming.
Or if they don't want to die...they need to change their policies...because they are slowly losing the greater volume of voters.
There's only so much time, tricks and manipulations will keep them in office. (and their establishment knows this...their problem is the louder screamers and more active members are the ultra-right types)

I'm not saying anything that the honest subject matter experts have said.

redravin · Sep 14, 2014

There are some interesting elections going on that may be a sign of things to come.
One here in Alaska where the Democrat and the Independent joined together to create their own ticket for a governor.
In Kansas, the Democrat dropped out of the race so the independent moderate could have a good chance of winning.
The Kansas race has actually made some of the handicappers wonder if the talk of the Republicans getting the Senate is up in the air.

These cases where hard core red states are peeling back to reveal much more moderate interiors should be interesting.

rogue49 · Oct 7, 2014

Looks like the Federal Courts are starting to go after one of the most effective GOP manipulations to get votes, gerrymandering. (at least I don't know of any for the Dems)

Federal Court Strikes Down One Of The Most Aggressive Gerrymanders In The Country

Now is the question if they can set it as a precedent for all the other ones, no matter who it benefits. (Dems, GOP or otherwise...)

I still think we need a Voting Rights Act or amendment (including making the polling day on the weekend...the full weekend...and/or Monday and making it a federal holiday)

rogue49 · Oct 8, 2014

Yep, Americans are fickle bosses...it's ROM - Results Oriented Management
Only it's about the results they pay attention to...when they want to pay attention to it.
"What have you done for me lately??"

Gotta bring home the bacon (to everyone...)

The GOP is supposed to be closing in on a banner Election Day.
So why are so many Republican governors flailing?
By Andrew Romano

It's the economy, stupid. Four years after the 2010 wave, tea party policies in key states seem to be backfiring

Nov. 2, 2010, was a very nice day for a certain kind of Republican. You know the type. Talks about liberty and freedom and the Founders. Carries a pocket copy of the Constitution. Loves tax cuts and "job creators." Hates Barack Obama and unions. Has probably attended a tea party rally (or 10).

But how were the next four years?

It's a difficult question to answer. When the dust settled in 2010, the GOP had picked up six seats in the Senate and another 63 seats in the House. Deficit-despising, austerity-advocating insurgents were largely responsible for the shift.

But then they went to Washington … and did what, exactly? With a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate standing in the way, it was impossible to make new laws, let alone implement an entire economic agenda. In D.C., at least, the class of 2010 has been forced to settle for obstruction.

To get a clearer sense of how the 2010 Republican wave riders have fared — and how the ideas that animated their big electoral victory have worked in the real world — you have to look beyond the Beltway. You have to look at the politicians who've actually have had the power to do what the party's D.C. delegation could only dream of doing: cutting taxes, slashing pensions, upping welfare requirements, and so on.

You have to look at the governors.

***

With one month to go before Election Day, the major storyline about the 2014 midterms seems to be that the GOP is up and the Democrats are down. Republicans will hold the House; they're even favored to win the Senate.

But turn your attention to the gubernatorial contests, and a different picture emerges. Eight Republican incumbents are in danger of losing re-election; only three of their Democratic counterparts find themselves in the same situation.

Eight Republican incumbents are in danger of losing re-election. This is remarkable.

This is remarkable. According to Louis Jacobson, the re-election rate for governors between 1998 and 2012 was 82 percent, meaning that incumbent governors were almost five times as likely to win as to lose. To put the GOP's current predicament in perspective, the number of Republicans currently at risk — again, eight — is the same as the total number who were unseated during the entire 14-year period that Jacobson surveyed.

So what's going on?

It's the electoral version of "be careful what you wish for — you just might get it." For the most part, the new coterie of conservative leaders who swept into statehouses across the country four years ago weren't your standard-issue Republicans. They were bolder. More principled. Less willing to compromise.

Sam Brownback in Kansas. Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania. Paul LePage in Maine. Rick Scott in Florida. Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

Their goal was to practice what the tea party preached. "My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, 'See, we've got a different way, and it works,'" said Brownback. "We'll have a real, live experiment."

And that's just what they did. In Kansas, Brownback eliminated the top income bracket, reduced the others and ended taxes on certain kinds of small-business income. He instituted strict new welfare and food-stamp requirements. He rejected federal funding for Medicaid, eliminated thousands of state jobs and cut money for education.

In Pennsylvania, Corbett reduced state aid to public schools by $900 million, resulting in thousands of teacher layoffs; he also refused to tax the natural-gas companies currently profiting from the big Marcellus Shale drilling boom.

In Maine, LePage implemented the largest tax cut in state history, which lowered the top income tax rate and doubled the estate-tax exemption from $1 million to $2 million. He went on to limit welfare benefits and repeal restrictions on big-box stores and mining.

In Scott's first year in office in Florida, he slashed the state budget by $4 billion, cut corporate taxes, and vetoed $615 million worth of spending for, among other things, "homeless veterans, meals for seniors, whooping-cough vaccines for low-income mothers, an independent living center for the developmentally disabled and, of course, public radio."

And then there's Walker in Wisconsin, whose famous 2011 "budget repair bill" eliminated collective bargaining rights for public employees, reduced Medicaid spending by $500 million, and removed more than $1 billion from the state's education coffers.

The point of these reforms was to show that balancing the budget by taking money away from the government and giving it back to the people would trigger explosive economic growth. Brownback, for one, compared his tax cuts to "a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy" that would "pave the way to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs, bring tens of thousands of people to Kansas, and help make our state the best place in America to start and grow a small business."

But there's the rub.

Brownback, Corbett, LePage, Scott and Walker promised that governing 2010 style would be an economic slam-dunk. The data, however, tells a different story.

Four years later, most of these states are struggling. In Kansas, the budget is hemorrhaging revenue. Both Moody's and S&P have downgraded the state's bond rating. And since Brownback's cuts took effect, job growth in Kansas has lagged behind the national level and all but one of its neighboring states.

Wisconsin is in a similar bind, ranking 35th in job growth during the first three years of Walker's term, and dead last among its immediate neighbors, including Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Ohio. And now the state is facing a new $1.8 billion deficit in the 2015-17 budget "because of tax cuts enacted by Walker and lawmakers and lagging growth in other state taxes."

Back east, the situation is the same. Forbes recently named Maine the worst state in the country for business, noting that "job growth projections are the worst in the U.S and only Vermont is expected to have slower household income growth over the next five years." And Pennsylvania isn't faring much better. The Keystone State ranks 42nd in job growth over the past 12 months — and 49th since the beginning of Corbett's term.

Only Florida's economy seems to be outperforming America's as a whole, growing by 2.2 percent in 2013 vs.1.9 percent nationwide (after seven years of below-average numbers). But then, Scott is the only member of the class of 2010 who shed the tea party ties of his first year after polls showed him losing re-election by wide margins, recasting himself as "a pro-education champion of higher teacher salaries" and promising to restore some of his earlier environmental cuts. Last June he signed the largest budget in Florida's history.

***

Are the tea partyish policies of Brownback, Corbett, LePage, Scott and Walker solely to blame for these subpar economic stats? Nothing in politics is that simple. Larger structural forces matter more than any one governor's agenda; politicians can only turn the Titanic a couple of degrees at a time.

Still, there's a reason why Kansas Democrat Paul Davis has secured endorsements from more than 100 current and former Republican officials who oppose Brownback's administration, and leads the governor in every poll released during the past month. There's a reason why Corbett trails his Democratic rival, Tom Wolf, by an average of 15.5 percentage points, making him very likely to become the first incumbent governor in Pennsylvania history to lose re-election. There's a reason why only 39 percent of Mainers are telling pollsters they plan to vote for LePage in November. And there's a reason why Scott and Walker are neck and neck with their flawed opponents.

The bottom line is that the class of 2010 governors promised revolutionary policies that would, in turn, spark revolutionary economic results. But while they delivered on the first half of that equation, they didn't deliver on the second — and in many cases, it's easier to argue that austerity hurt their states more than it helped.

Of course, Brownback, Corbett, LePage, Scott and Walker weren't the only Republican governors elected in 2010. Iowa's Terry Branstad, Ohio's John Kasich, New Mexico's Susana Martinez and Michigan's Rick Snyder also came to power that year. But none of them veered as far to the right as their imperiled compatriots — and none of them are in real danger of losing re-election.

A wise ex-governor probably said it best: "It's the economy, stupid." If Nov. 4, 2014, doesn't end up being as nice a day for Brownback & Co. as, say, Nov. 2, 2010, they'll have only themselves to blame.
Click to expand...

rogue49 · Oct 9, 2014

And to add to the above...even the Senate races don't look so "in the bag" as many thought.
Late-season surprises shake GOP confidence in Senate elections

I still say, this is the Dems late season strategy that they "hid" from the GOP.
Get out the vote, get out the vote, get out the vote.
They're going to try to make all those lazy Dem voters get out to the polls.

The GOP really doesn't have an answer for it.
And even if the GOP wins to a certain extent, they're going to make them sweat.

You know what it smells like when Elephants sweat?? (although it can't be worse than when a Donkey sweats... )
Smelly Congress, peeew.

rogue49 · Nov 5, 2014

Well, congrats to the GOP.
You're now in front...what are you going to do with it?
Please don't do what I worry you're going to do...do good things with it. Prove the bastards wrong.

For Republicans, the hard part is about to begin

‘Making the President Small’
NOV. 5, 2014

Democrats counting on favorable demographic trends to carry their party to victory in 2016 should consider three significant developments reflected in the outcome of Tuesday’s elections.

The first is that the Republican establishment, at least for the moment, has wrested control back from the Tea Party wing. This will make it more difficult for Democrats to portray their opponents as dangerous extremists.

The second, and more important, development was the success of Republican candidates in defusing accusations that their party is conducting a “war on women.” The effectiveness of Republican tactics on this front is sure to influence strategy in two years, threatening to undermine a line of attack that has generated a gender gap and has been crucial to past Democratic victories.

The third was the powerful showing of Republican gubernatorial candidates in two Midwestern states important to Democrats in presidential elections: Wisconsin and Michigan.

“The hard-right is not in control of the agenda anymore. The inmates are no longer running the asylum. The adults are back in charge,” Feehery, who spent two decades working as an aid to the former Republican minority leader Robert Michel, the former House majority leader Tom DeLay, and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, wrote in an email to the Times.

“The number one issue for the Senate majority is to have some accomplishments that the vulnerable members up in 2016 can run on,” according to Feehery.

David Brady, a political scientist at Stanford and deputy director of the Hoover Institution, voiced less certainty over the ability of the establishment to control the agenda.

The results are not a mandate for the Republican Party, Brady said, and “the question is: can the leadership contain the whackos and legislate on immigration, taxes and the few other areas where deals are possible.”

Looking forward, Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center noted that now “the pressure is on the G.O.P. If they don’t meet or exceed expectations, given views of Obama and public discontent, it will raise real questions about their long term political viability.” If, however, “they do well, the pressure on the Democrats to have a new look going forward will be very great.”

While Republicans may not have a mandate, Democrats suffered some serious setbacks.

The party’s candidates for Senate and governor in Georgia were crushed by larger margins than expected. The results threaten Democratic prospects of turning Georgia into a presidential battlefield in 2016.

In Texas, Democrats expected to lose but were counting on Wendy Davis to demonstrate that the state will, in the near future, turn competitive. Instead, she lost her gubernatorial bid to Greg Abbott, the Republican candidate, by more than 20 points.

Stephen Ansolabehere, a political scientist at Harvard, wrote in response to my inquiry that “one of the important stories is the loss of several key moderate Democrats, including John Walsh in Montana, Tim Johnson in South Dakota, and Mark Pryor in Arkansas. That will be a big hole in the centrist faction.”

Republicans, in contrast, established beachheads in two Midwestern states that have traditionally cast presidential majorities for Democrats. In Michigan, Republican Governor Rick Snyder won re-election handily, and in Wisconsin, Scott Walker, a Republican governor with his eye on a presidential bid, overwhelmed Democratic challenger Mary Burke.

Both Walker and Snyder have won enactment of legislation adamantly opposed by organized labor in states where unions have been a powerful force in the past.

David Leege, political scientist emeritus at Notre Dame, summarized his assessment of the election in a late night email:
“Bi-election year 2014 was the final chapter in making the president small. The immediate aftermath of 2008 was that Americans had finally conquered their racial aversions. The election of Barack Obama was a victory both for renewed national hope and long-awaited democracy. Obama was big, a star, a voice to be reckoned with, a mind to be taken seriously.

“By 2014 Obama was small, a punching bag, easily bullied, the one to whom small politicians could talk tough, abusively, the one whose ideas were ignored, the one whom his fellow partisans would come to avoid at all cost. How could this happen in six short years?”
Click to expand...

redux · Nov 5, 2014

The Democratic coalition is still pretty strong if exit polls are an indicator. Turnout was the issue; no surprise in a mid-term election.

Women voted more for Ds by 8%, Blacks by 81%, Hispanics by 30%, millennials by 13%.

Republicans still rely heavily on white, older voters.

ASU2003 · Nov 5, 2014

How could this happen in six short years?
Click to expand...

Because the conservatives on the right wing are a bunch of hateful, racist, bigot, lying, selfish, corrupt a-holes that can brainwash and unify their base to support them. They used every dirty political tactic to prevent anything from getting done and now expect to have Obama rubber stamp everything they send to him. They think they are special and good when they are anything but. They just have better PR campaigns and make people think that the Democrats are going to take away your "freedom" when it will be the Republicans who will do that very quickly when they are in charge.

Whereas the Democrats look like they don't know what they are doing and have no strategy, no answer about how to connect to the old white man and their kids who vote religion and guns, and no media presence. They need to figure out how to run campaigns and sending out 500 e-mails begging for money is not how you do it.

redravin · Nov 5, 2014

What is totally bizarre is states that passed referendums for things like raising the minimum wage, legalizing pot, gay marriage, and gun control also elected Republicans.

It should be interesting to see if Mitch McConnell does what he threatened to do which is send all the spending bills to the president with poison pills in them, like defunding the EPA and the ACA so he can make it look like it's the presidents fault that the government is shutting down.
If that happens I can only hope the American people are smart enough to realize what is going on.

rogue49 · Nov 5, 2014

redravin said: ↑

What is totally bizarre is states that passed referendums for things like raising the minimum wage, legalizing pot, gay marriage, and gun control also elected Republicans.

It should be interesting to see if Mitch McConnell does what he threatened to do which is send all the spending bills to the president with poison pills in them, like defunding the EPA and the ACA so he can make it look like it's the presidents fault that the government is shutting down.
If that happens I can only hope the American people are smart enough to realize what is going on.
Click to expand...

I think he'll be a vetoing fool...poison pill or not.
He'll keep the tone as he's being a strong president...and the GOP will be blamed. (because it is the party "in power" that gets blamed)
Plus Obama has nothing to lose.

Hillary is on her own...as are the Dems.
Put on your big boy pants y'all.

rogue49 · Nov 6, 2014

This is a good summary of my sentiments.
Use it ...or lose it.
And do it well for those you represent...
not the backers, not the lobbyists, not the ideologues
For...the nation, its citizens.

Get good shit done.

Looking Back, Looking Forward
Charles M. Blow - NOV. 5, 2014

The Republicans proved Tuesday that the establishment still knows how to win.

They fielded stronger candidates. They had few gaffes and little going off script. Extreme views were couched in softer language or played down altogether.

Candidates adopted a faux rustic aura, like a strip mall Olive Garden. The campaigns were savvy in their simplicity: anti-Obama, anti-Washington. Republicans damaged the Obama brand as best they could, then attached all Democratic candidates to it.

As the Weekly Standard reported last week:
“According to Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG), Republicans ran nearly 12,000 anti-Obamacare ads in Senate races during the week of October 13-19. That’s almost twice as many ads as they ran on jobs/unemployment, more than twice as many as they ran on international affairs, and more than three times as many as they ran on taxes. In fact, it’s more than they ran on jobs/unemployment, taxes, and social issues combined. It’s also more than they ran on jobs/unemployment and immigration combined.”

Over the same period, but to a far lesser degree, Democrats focused more on issues like education, Social Security, prescription drugs and social issues.
And outside money played a large part in it. As Nicholas Confessore reported in The New York Times, “All told, Republican outside groups spent about $205 million on television advertising, according to a Democrat tracking media purchases, while Democratic groups spent $132 million,” and “the political network overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch appeared to be the largest overall source of outside television spending on behalf of Republicans.”

The nearly dimwitted, Goober-esque affectations came together with an ocean of dark money in a midterm where the map and the math already favored them to give Democrats a drubbing.

It didn’t help that the Republican strategy pushed Democrats so far back on their heels that they never found enough footing to trumpet their own successes. Many were so busy running away from an association with the president that they never got around to running on Democratic principle.

This was a huge mistake. When someone from your party occupies the White House, you are shackled to them no matter what you say. Better to move together than chop off your own leg trying to free yourself.

Now the president has to determine if there is common ground to be found with a newly ascendant Republican legislature, and Republicans have to determine if they want to squander their victory on vengeance and if they can quash their own internal civil war.

One could certainly make the argument that the president, with an eye toward legacy and posterity, would want to find some areas of compromise, possibly on tax and energy policies. Part of a presidency is judged by which major bills are passed during it, and the present obstructionist do-nothing Congress has certainly hampered the Obama presidency in that respect.

Taking the next few months, before the 2016 presidential race truly sucks all the air out of Washington, to make some headway might be good for him.

However, during a news conference on Wednesday, the president was not contrite or cowed. He presented as a man hopeful for a little compromise but bracing for a lot of fighting. He didn’t tuck his tail as much as bare his fangs.

This defiant stance could actually stiffen the spines of some staunch progressives who are already looking at a list of promises by Obama, only about half of which have been kept in full, according to PolitiFact (some compromises were made and some efforts were simply blocked), and feeling some commingling of betrayal, buyer’s remorse and battle fatigue.

There may even be a compromise to be had on immigration. The president reiterated Wednesday that he would issue an executive order first but, if Congress could pass comprehensive legislation afterward, the order would be supplanted.

On the Republican side, they have a conundrum. As the saying goes: “Be careful what you set your heart upon — for it will surely be yours.”

Republicans ran against Washington, but now they are Washington. Now that they control both houses of Congress, they must demonstrate that they are capable of solutions, and not just sullenness. They have to pass actual legislation and not just demonstration bills that the president will be sure to veto.

Obama has vetoed only two bills in six years. That’s the fewest since James Garfield, who held the office for only 200 days. Obama’s pen has plenty of ink, and I’m sure he’s itching to use it.

The American people, for their part, are eager to have their faith reaffirmed that Washington is not irreparably broken and that our politicians aren’t implacably insolent.

There is only a small window for politicians in Washington to provide some proof.
Click to expand...

Aceventura · Nov 6, 2014

redravin said: ↑

What is totally bizarre is states that passed referendums for things like raising the minimum wage, legalizing pot, gay marriage, and gun control also elected Republicans.
Click to expand...

The media and Democrats have been overly simplifying those who make up the Republican Party. Many believe there literally is a "war on women" by the party as an example.

Take me as an example - I am conservative, registered Republican, associate with the Tea Party, but I have libertarian leanings.

My only problem with the minimum wage is it makes it harder for young people with no job skills and a poor education to enter the work force. It is inflationary but will not hurt nor help the economy within a reasonable increase - I can see many voting for it.

I support legalizing (but regulating) all illegal drugs. I don't care what drug an adult chooses to use in private.

I don't believe government should regulate marriage at all. The law should recognize what we call marriage as civil unions, or contracts. Marriage in my view is religious.

I have no problem with background checks, waiting periods, mandatory licensing, and registration of guns. Even restrictions on the sale of certain types of military grade firearms/weapons. I am not currently a member of the NRA but I was at one time - the only reason I am not a member now is that a few years ago when I was having financial issues I dropped memberships in many groups including the NRA to save money.

In addition:

I have no problem with birth control, immigration reform, taxing carbon in a manner that covers real social costs, equal pay, Medicare and guaranteed healthcare for children - among many other liberal things.

Reading characterizations on TFP of my views, Tea Party views, conservative views, Republican views often makes me laugh.

rogue49 · Nov 7, 2014

Aceventura said: ↑

The media and Democrats have been overly simplifying those who make up the Republican Party. Many believe there literally is a "war on women" by the party as an example.
...
Reading characterizations on TFP of my views, Tea Party views, conservative views, Republican views often makes me laugh.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying to a certain extent...however, the issue is not the individuals.
It's what ending up being "said".
Or even what's being acted on that gets people up in arms about the GOP.

They say that too much "red meat" can hurt you.
And that seems to be what it's like...when you get many GOP or conservative leaning individuals in a calm state...they discuss things just like you do now.

However, when you get them in an impassioned state...the rhetoric that comes out is outrageous...and overboard.
I've seen you do that.
I've had my dad do that.
I've seen my sister do that, before she changed to the "other side" (now she's liberal, while I've stayed in the middle all this time)
And I see GOP public figures do that.

So, then you find that articulate logical person coming at you guns a blazin'
"Obama's a communist muslim" or "He's the WORST president EVER"
"rape can be controlled"
"abortion is evil"
etc...and so on

Then, for some reason...much of the GOP lines up with this impassioned individual and they act on the most ABSURD positions. (like they did with Cruz)

Is it to make a point???
Do your passions or anger get the best of them?
Do they have to follow everyone else for that moment?? (which DOES help get things done, btw...at least there is a benefit, they're not wishy-washy like the Dems)

It's surreal, some of the postures I see.
And unfortunately, many are potentially harmful and ill-conceived.

It's like a cool dude that you hang out often...then you find yourself saying, "You did WHAT??"

I tell you, it doesn't compute for me. Doesn't make sense.
And I'm not a liberal...just a practical GDI.

Why would they take some of the positions they do??
Why say the things they say??
Why twist history and reality??

Again, just to make a point to satisfy your passion and anger??

The GOP eats too much red-meat; needs to go on a diet.
The Dems don't eat enough meat, too many veggies; need to gain some heft.

The best thing that the GOP can do is keep calm, be very practical and productive...this will throw off the Dems completely, make 2016 actually reasonable for the GOP, keep the momentum going, gain credibility.
However, from what I've seen, I can almost guarantee that they'll go overboard...making Hillary's job easy and giving her a HUGE target and 2016 will be an anger wave vs. the Congress, not Obama.

The GOP are their own worst enemies.
Same is true for many conservatives. (including here...)

redux · Nov 7, 2014

The single most obvious message to come out of the election is that voters want an end to partisan gridlock and want more compromise and consensus building.

Some perspective:

Since the last midterm election in 2010, support for lawmakers who are willing to compromise has risen dramatically, reflecting a desire among voters for an end to the partisan gridlock in Congress.

In October 2010, a month before the election in which Republicans gained an historic number of seats in the House and regained control of the chamber, about a third of voters said they would prefer candidates willing to compromise. Nearly twice as many voters—57%—said they wanted candidates who would stick to their positions.

Those numbers have since reversed themselves, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. Now, half of Americans say they would prefer candidates willing to compromise, compared with 42% to want their candidates to stick to their guns.

Tea Party Further Out of Favor as ‘Compromise’ Gains — WSJ/NBC News Poll - Washington Wire - WSJ
Click to expand...

That is quite a swing from "no compromise" (down from 57% to 42%) to "compromise" (up from 33% to 50%).

We'll see soon enough on extending a CR to keep the government running.

Boehner and McConnell have indicated that they wont hold the CR hostage to more spending cuts and/or govt shutdown but are already getting push back from the Tea Party minority within the Republican caucus.

Will the Republican leadership stand firm or capitulate to the TP and let the craziest inmates run the asylum?

Log in or Sign up

Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

ASU2003 Very Tilted

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Log in or Sign up

Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

ASU2003 Very Tilted

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Useful Searches