« What happens when we get a liberal Supreme Court | Main | The Republican Party’s white voter problem »

November 08, 2012

Comments

If whites had hit the polls in higher numbers Obama would have lost, but right now many traditional white voters are apathetic and don't see that much difference between the parties. This was especially the case in the Great Lakes region.

If Obama goes crazy with the liberal agenda during his 2nd term that may motivate higher white turnout in 2016.

I completely agree that saying Romney was a bad candidate is an extremely foolish thing to do.

Are you sure that the base would reject Christie, though? Romney was a Mormon who had been governor of a left-leaning coastal state and there was no noticable rejection of him by the right-wing evangelical voters. I mean, what are they going to do? Vote for Obama?

I would have preferred Romney to Christie but given the party's situation, beggars can't be choosers.

By the way, the new Republican governor of NC, Pat McCrory, definitely has gravitas. I don't know much else about him yet but if he has a successful term then I could see him being a dark horse in 2016.

McCain/Palin I think we all can agree was a deeply flawed ticket, but had Romney, the best candidate to appeal to a wide swath of Americans, simply matched the vote totals of the deeply flawed McCain/Palin ticket, he'd have won Ohio.

I also predict some libertarian messiah will arise and will split the Republican vote even further than Gary Johnson did; who managed to get 1% of the vote. Many currently disaffected Republicans and those from Generation Y will gravitate towards this mesiah and will praise him incessantly on facebook and online forums. Ron Paul will be too old in 2016. Gary Johnson comes off as whiny, weak and uncharasmatic while Rand Paul is too pro anti-abortion and anti-immigration for the libertarians.

I used to know some Republican "strategists" and they are not very smart. They really do think that a white Cuban Republican is going to appeal to Mexican mestizos who want/need more government handouts.

Romney was not a bad candidate and did better in debates than any Republican since Reagan. He probably has a higher IQ than any GOP nominee since Nixon.

You're leaving out Jeb Bush.

"The history of Republican presidential nominations is that the nominee is always someone who was around and known during the previous presidential election cycle."

I don't remember Dubya doing anything in the 1996 Presidential campaign.

For that matter, I don't remember Dole doing anything in the 1992 campaign.

[HS: People KNEW who they were four years before they ran for president. Dole was a well-known senior Senator.]

Romney was a poor candidate in 2008; he was much improved this time around. There is a reason GOP tends to select the runner-ups of the previous primary cycles.

In 4 year Paul Ryan will be the same age as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama when they got elected. These two guys may have lacked in gravitas but they more than made up in youthful dynamism. It's time for GOP to stop nominating the grandfather types.

Why couldn't Romney run again in 2016?

Ryan/Rubio 2016


I think it could work.

Christie is extremely pro immigration.

What the party needs is someone anti immigration, pro gay and pro abortion. This person also needs to be able to maintain the support of evangelicals.

Pretty sure nobody like that exists. The closest thing out there: Mitt Romney.

What the party needs is to lose for two or three more cycles while a new socially liberal but anti immigrant leadership develops.

"People KNEW who they were four years before they ran for president."

Not convinced many people knew who either of them was -- especially Dubya.

Lots of people know who Jeb Bush is.

Is immigration really that big of a deal?

"A study published this week by the Pew Hispanic Center found that over the last five years, immigration from Mexico to the United States has dropped to its lowest level in decades, hitting the key “net zero” benchmark just recently, where more Mexicans are moving out of the U.S. than there are coming in."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/24/study-mexican-immigration-hits-net-zero/

Besides, Mexicans aren't that bad. They're family oriented and have a lot of spanish/native blood.

"What the party needs is to lose for two or three more cycles while a new socially liberal but anti immigrant leadership develops."

So basically, Democrat-lite. Why not just vote Democrat then? The Republicans need to go hardline - anti-entitlement, pro-business, small government, reduce the military, and stop giving unpopular tax cuts for the rich. Create a real alternative for the middle class to believe in instead of surrendering to the gay-loving, woman-worshipping crap.

Florida native here.

People talk about Jeb Bush. I think he was a good governor and would have been a better president than W. However, there is no chance that he will be president. Even if he wanted the job, a third Bush president is going to be too much like a dynasty for the taste of most Americans.

I wouldn't mind seeing Huntsman run again, but now that he's at Brookings the "we weren't conservative enough" crowd will scream even louder.

I've met Rubio a few times. He's clearly being groomed as a rising star in the party. I could see him being a VP candidate. I had thought he might not have enough experience for a competitive presidential bid in 2016, but he'd have more senate experience than Obama did at the time of his first election.

"So basically, Democrat-lite. Why not just vote Democrat then?"

Because the new Republican party would ideally be pro white and anti immigrant. The only issue that matters is immigration.

shiva1008,

How many times does the idea that Mexicans are conservative have to be debunked. Mexicans commit felons at four times the rate of whites. MOre than 50% of Mexican children are born to single mothers. Mexicans have failed to advanced up the economic ladder and fail school at a rate on par with blacks. Mexicans attend church at the same rate was whites and much less than blacks.

There is no data to support the idea that Mexican are open to fiscally conservative idea. The idea that the government will tax the gringos and give them the money will trump anythng that the Republicans can say.

"Just as Reagan was governor of a left-leaning coastal state, so was Romney."

Reagan was elected governor of California in 1966, and back then it was definitely not a left leaning state. It was considered to be a somewhat anti-union, business-friendly state back then, albeit with a relaxed attitude about social issues. Hard to believe, I know.

Yeah I guess that's true. I guess law and order is more of a European thing, looking at Mexico's current situation.

I found this read over at Whiskey's place interesting. Maybe this is what we have to look forward to with an increasing hispanic population:

http://whiskeysplace.wordpress.com/2012/07/30/the-battle-for-anaheim-is-the-battle-for-california-and-the-us/

No matter who WE think should be the Republican nominee, there's the matter of their own primary voters. Romney couldn't win in 2012 because Presidents get two terms unless they suck (Bush the Elder was Reagan's third term, so he didn't get another.)

But the Republicans have been defeating winnable Senate candidates like Richard Lugar and Mike Castle to replace with right-wing nuts. The country isn't polarized; Republican primary voters are.

The system is experiencing a perfect storm with the rise of slut feminism, mob mentality "hate whitey" coalition of non-whites, destruction of the white working class through pie-in-the-sky notions of "free trade," and world financial instability. No pol will talk about any of this except (superficially)for the last item. So we probably have to get to a Greek-type collapse before anything can be done.

I don't think any other candidate could have done as well as Romney.

Hispanics aren't the "natural conservatives" that people make them out to be. They may work hard, at least the first generation, and may go to church more than other ethnic groups. However, over 50% of kids are born out of wedlock. They like government handouts. And they're not destined to rise up economically, as they really don't seem to care much for education. While Asians emphasize education, it's not a big deal in the Hispanic community. That's a huge problem long term: it basically preserves the underclass status of many Hispanics. People at the bottom of the ladder that don't have the inclination to climb the ladder are going to vote for handouts.

I'm not sure what the answer is to the Republican problem.

The only reason the Republicans won the House is because of Gerrymandering. Republicans hold a 13-5 majority in Pennsylvania's delegation but Obama carried that state handily.

One thing that I think the Republicans should do during this upcoming budget compromise is insist that state income tax no longer be made deductible. That'll really hurt the blue states. And it'll force blue state senators to defend targeted tax breaks. The Republicans could just say only $3,000 of state income taxes are deductible. Watch the northeastern Democrats squirm at that.

It's important to think of the Presidential race more like a spectator sporting event. It may feel like yelling and cheering can somehow magically alter the outcome but no matter if you vote or not, or if you help campaign for a candidate, who wins is largely out of your control. But it's mostly all in good fun if you don't take the race so seriously; it's all about having fun making speculations and see how reality pans out.

If someone as liberal as Romney (Pro big government, pro government provided healthcare, pro amnesty, sometimes pro choice, pro civil unions) is too "conservative" to win in the general election against someone as bad as obama, then how can the Republicans ever win?
Is it over? One party state from here on out?

Romney was the best GOP candidate in years maybe decades. Tall, stellar looks, perfect head of hair, top of his class ivy league grad, rich and successful, strong executive experience, despite having it all a faithful family man. There won't be anyone like him again in our lifetime. A real loss for America.

Although I am very left leaning, I must say that I appreciate Romney not being a knee-jerk Republican. He was very much a centrist and had he been a democrat from the start of his political career, he would have been quite successful. He has an ability to see the whole picture very clearly and is able to make optimal choices for the real-world and not some fictional unattainable world. He was nearly the perfect Presidential candidate all around; almost the platonic ideal of what a president should be.

@ shiva1008

You sound like someone who lives in a region of the USA with few Mexicans but yes I'd recommend you non-border state people read Whiskey's blog entry about Anaheim to get a good idea of what's going on. People eat a few burritos and they think they know it all about Mexicans and how wonderful they are.

Agreed that Romney was the best broadly-appealing GOP candidate since Reagan. Ann Coulter agrees too: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-11-07.html

And agreed that Romney would have made a great president.

But W. had an advantage over him: he was more deeply-appealing to the GOP base. On paper, You'd figure a guy like Romney would be more appealing to a state like Maine. But if the GOP is going to lose states like Maine with a Romney anyway, then maybe we're looking at things the wrong way.

BTW, in hindsight, the headline writer who came up with the headline "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" for Romney's NYT op-ed really screwed him. Imagine if he had titled it, "How the Federal Government Can Help Save Detroit" (which would have been accurate based on the last two paragraphs: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ). That might have made the difference in Ohio and a couple of other states.

"Romney couldn't win in 2012 because Presidents get two terms unless they suck"

Ummmm... but Obama sucks. In every possible way.

"===There is no data to support the idea that Mexican are open to fiscally conservative idea. The idea that the government will tax the gringos and give them the money will trump anythng that the Republicans can say.

Posted by: superdestroyer ==="

This is exactly right. They are going to vote for whoever gives them more things for free. Trying to be Dem lights is never going to win the day. There is the added benefit for at least some of them that they are sticking it the more successful White Taxpayer, who they resent. As long as the tax takers exceed the tax payers, they'll always vote themselves free booty at your expense, so they'll NEVER be for the party that wants to limit government (and by extension government cheese).

I don't think that there IS a solution to that, as long as there's one man, one vote. It is democracy killing itself. Blacks and Hispanics are a permanent underclass, owing to lower IQs. Letting them in by the tens of millions was to create a permanent Democratic majority that will suck the host dry until it is dead.

"I don't think that there IS a solution to that, as long as there's one man, one vote."

There is a solution, though it's not an easy one: facilitate the creation of the sort of private sector jobs that give workers enough economic security that they don't have to rely on government. That was how Reagan won the Reagan Dems -- unionized manufacturing workers who had good wages and benefits and so they voted for the GOP for cultural issues (patriotism, guns, etc.) instead of for the Dems for government benefits.

Key there is that you can't just "support unions". Unions only help give a bigger share of the pie to workers. You need to give bakers a reason to bake pies in the US in the first place. And you need to limit the number of new pie eaters. That means, among other things, intelligent trade and immigration policies.

This is uphill for the GOP in that it requires a healthier middle class to do well, whereas the Dems can win with a coalition of the rich and poor, so if the middle class withers away, it doesn't hurt them electorally.

The Republicans need to run a pro-choice white woman for president in 2016. Rubio will add nothing to a ticket. Mexican roofers have nothing in common with a rich hispanic Republican.

JP -

Bob Dole had ran for VP in '76, in the primaries in '80, and again in '88. By '96, it was "his turn".

W had been elected governor of Texas in '94, and had defeated Ann Richards, who was well-known nationally at the time. He was re-elected in '98, so was a sitting second-term governor of the second-largest state when he ran for President.

The same Republicans who supported and nominated the same kind of pathological banker trash that collapsed the entire "free" world economy are now complaining they were ripped off and lied to.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/07/1158651/-Romney-Donors-Complain-They-Were-Ripped-Off-And-Lied-To

Romney Donors Complain They Were Ripped Off And Lied To

[HS: You really expect honest feedback from DailyKos?]

Romney was not the "second coming of Reagan." Reagan could clearly and concisely defend his conservative beliefs, because he was true conservative and had a natural bent for communication.

Romney was OK at communicating, but was no more a conservative that either of the Bushes. He could not teach or defend what he did not really believe in.

Conquistador said: Romney was the best GOP candidate in years maybe decades. Tall, stellar looks, perfect head of hair, top of his class ivy league grad, rich and successful, strong executive experience, despite having it all a faithful family man. There won't be anyone like him again in our lifetime. A real loss for America.

Drole Prole said: He was very much a centrist and had he been a democrat from the start of his political career, he would have been quite successful.

His Ivy League credential makes him a defacto SWPL and thus a wrong candidate for the loserish Reprolelicon gang.

He would have been better coming off as a liberal and running as a Democrat from the get go. This I agree with Drole. His Ivy League credential is much more symbolic with the Democrats than the party of the Proles (Republicans).

Romney is not a true entrepreneur, but a venture capitalist. Not that this matters much, but then it could have, since many of our economic woes is tied to Wall St, and people were turned off by him because of this.

It's not that the Republicans are all without hope. Had he appeared in 2016 for the 1st time, perhaps he could spin his business background to his favor and win the presidency as a Republican, granted 8 years of Obama was a fucking joke. It's about timing sometimes, as Michael Bloomberg who is a lifelong Democrat switched sides by becoming a Republican and won the mayoral seat right after 911. He won by appeasing to the public that his business experience was needed to bring the city back to normalcy, something that the Democrats weren't able to do, ever since the NAM mayor David Dinkins was a complete failure.

Governor Romney was a fine candidate and a fine man, but comparing him to Ronald Reagan is silly. They were two entirely different candidates.

Reagan was not the governor of a blue state, but rather a very large purple state. California was a much more politically diverse place in the sixties, seventies, and eighties than it is today, and Reagan would win it handily both times he ran for president. That's not a claim Romney can make about Massachusetts - a very deep blue state in which he did not even dare attempt to run for reelection as governor (because he knew he would lose) and an electorate he lost by more than twenty points to Obama.

Reagan did flip-flop on certain issues, like abortion, but he was a genuine conservative who spoke with consistent eloquence about the need for smaller government. Romney had no core political beliefs, and the frequency and extreme nature of his flip flops was as great as anything I've seen in a serious presidential candidate. In fact, Reagan's most serious problem as a Republican was convincing the GOP elite of that period that he was a serious politician and not just an ideological firebrand. Romney's was convincing the GOP establishment he believed anything he said.

Romney had strengths as a candidate that Reagan did not have. He was incredibly disciplined, hard working, and a good manager. Reagan was not as lazy as the media myth depicted, but he kept a much slower pace than Romney. His executive style could be described as, at best, relaxed. The Massachusetts governor is also a much better family man than was Reagan.

Besides his flip flops, Romney's major problems as a candidate were his inability to make a credible and consistent case for how he would improve the economy and his inability to connect to more white voters. Reagan did not have any major problems as a candidate. He was eloquent, experienced and, best of all, right about the needs of the time.

The Republicans need to run a pro-choice white woman for president in 2016. Rubio will add nothing to a ticket. Mexican roofers have nothing in common with a rich hispanic Republican.

Posted by: CamelCaseRob
____________
Also, Rubio is Cuban and I doubt he could sway Mexicans and other non-Cuban Hispanics to vote for him. Plus Rubio is very white in look and demeanor and most Hispanics just see him as some white guy who has a distant Cuban background.

You people are delusional; Romney was a terrible candidate.

Most people have at least a vague understanding of how a leveraged buy out works (they at least understand it's fundamentally no different than a bust out) and they certainly know that jobs are being shipped overseas. They may not be able to articulate all that but they understand Romney comes from a highly privileged background and he took that highly privileged background to make a large portion of his fortune by saddling weakened companies with debt to pay himself a management fee to oversee shipping jobs overseas. He then sheltered that fortune overseas to pay a lower tax rate than they do, they understand it's all nice and legal like but they also know he's the guy screwing them over.

He could have used his gifts to help America, all he did was hurt America. Most people understand that Romney is a person to be wary of and that describing him as evil is not too outrageous, it seems only the HBD crowd thinks the devil has a tail and horns. They understand that at the best he's working out some bizarre father issue and probably trying to atone for the damage he's done to people just like them and most people grasp that is a toxic brew.

THat doesn't answer the question as to whether the republicans could have fielded a better candidate, maybe they can't. They blather on a lot about being proud to be an american and what have you but their actions don't really prove that. Probably Romney was the best repucblicans can do because at their core they are a wicked and fear driven people.

Christie is a blowhard, most people who didn't go to an Ivy League school and don't make 7 figures in the stem fields know that morbidly obese blowhards don't actually accomplish much of anything that wasn't going to happen anyway.

Is Al Dunlap still alive? I'm sure the republicans would blow their load for that guy.

"Also, Rubio is Cuban and I doubt he could sway Mexicans and other non-Cuban Hispanics to vote for him. Plus Rubio is very white in look and demeanor and most Hispanics just see him as some white guy who has a distant Cuban background".

The word Hispanic is as misleading as the word "American".

Any White person in the states trying to learn Spanish will be subjected to torment by their Latin American instructors. Here in NYC, several of the Hispanic institutes which are supposed to promote cultural ties to Spain, have a predominant Latin American staff who tend to resent any SWPL learning the language. Imagine an overseas American institute that teaches English staffed by NAMs.

"Rubio is very white in look and demeanor and most Hispanics just see him as some white guy who has a distant Cuban background"

Heh. Obama is very white in look and demeanor, and blacks would have been very correct to see him as a white guy who has a distant black background.

"Mexican roofers have nothing in common with a rich hispanic Republican."

They have about as much in common as ghetto blacks have in common with Obama.

"Mexican roofers have nothing in common with a rich hispanic Republican."

If you want to bring up HBD, Hispanic is a broad term. 99% of the rich Hispanics happened to be White /predominantly White and not the Mestizo or Mulatto variety we called NAMs.

As a former longtime GOP activist, I think this election finally proves what I've been saying for the last ten years: the GOP is toast. The Dems are too, but for different reasons and with a longer time frame in which to play out.

The results further prove that states with an electoral college majority are lost to the GOP forever--including some that were in the not too distant past bright red (CO, VA, NC, FL). There will never be another Republican president in our lifetimes, so we will be reduced to putting up token opposition on the national ticket in the same way the GOP runs such candidates at the local level for Congress and state legislatures in deep blue districts.

Romney was plain damn amazing in a lot of ways, but he lacked a compelling ideological narrative, didn't understand why voters increasingly distrust the GOP, and he set off a bit of class envy with his money, his perfect upbringing and his perfect (and beautiful) family. He was clearly checking boxes, saying "the polls say I need to believe in X, Y & Z, so I'll say I believe in X, Y & Z."

Despite being from Michigan and New England, he had no connection to Northeastern/Rust Belt working class whites that would help bring them into the fold.

Our GOP candidates spend too damn much time traipsing through Iowa and New Hampshire for four years and not nearly enough time traipsing through Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

"we will be reduced to putting up token opposition on the national ticket in the same way the GOP runs such candidates at the local level for Congress and state legislatures in deep blue districts."

The most important and useful thing the GOP can do is NOT DO THIS. Quit running forlorn hopes against Jim Moran! Run NOBODY. If it is a one-party state or one-party district, so be it. Let the Dems run unopposed.

The comments to this entry are closed.