4-5 in presidential elections
Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 9:42AM
Lost to Reagan twice and HW once.
Won twice with Clinton.
Lost twice with Bush.
Won twice with Obama.
Voted once in WI, twice in MA, once in MD, once in VA, twice in RI and twice now in IN.
What always gets me in the end? Supreme Court Justice picks. You don't think about it much on election day, but man, do you ever when somebody announces a retirement (or death). I just keep thinking about all those 5-4 decisions, like the recent one on the healthcare law (which I support).
Also this time: the sense that the GOP is losing its grip. Way too obstructionist over Obama's first term. Now polling lower than Independents, which stuns me. Losing women, which is a long-term issue of significance. Losing Hispanics, another long-term issue. The GOP is not a healthy lot, and their talent seems thinner than ever. it is becoming the party of scared white people in a multinational union experiencing unprecedented demographic change. That's not a winning proposition.
The Dems, meanwhile, have much better long-term prospects. Thus some genuine system utility in hopefully seeing the GOP realize how far they've drifted.
Yes, there will be many within the GOP that says "we lost because we nominated a moderate." But a hardliner would have done far worse, in my opinion - just driving up the Dem advantages on minorities and gender and sexual orientation (not a small percentage to ignore by any means). Simply put, that tent needs to be expanded because the GOP is running third right now.
And no, I don't think the GOP should draw much satisfaction from the popular vote. It's simply amazing that Obama won with the recovery coming so late. Six months from now he'd win by a much bigger margin.
Why do I worry about the GOP? In the end, they are more likely to be the agent of triggering a new progressive era (remember TR) than the Dems. I can see the Dems joining in with relish. I just suspect they won't have enough panic within their ranks to initiate.
So I'm hoping the GOP eventually locates that panic.
The clear pattern: states with borders largely go Dem and inland states overwhelmingly go Republican. It's just like China's emerging split and that of risers everywhere. States that face out versus states that face in. In the U.S., it's who's more open on immigration and less China-bashing versus who's tougher on immigration and more China-bashing. The GOP simply doesn't work as the party of fear.
Reader Comments (9)
The GOP has also chased away another demographic - muslims and Arab Americans.
See this essay by Syrian-American baseball writer Rany Jayazerli.
I still don't know if Tea Party and hardcore conservatives losing will cause a re-evaluation since the heart of the modern party mythologizes the Goldwater landslide so much. But until they decide to play ball, the game is just going to keep looking like this.
This may seem extreme but the GOP in it's current state reminds me of South Africa in the last years of the old regime. Fear, resistance to change and the idea that somehow money could save them in the end. The sight of Karl Rove arguing with the Fox News people was truly stunning. As the saying goes "These folks need to get out more."
I thought you were endorsing Romney? At least that was the implication in the post where you agreed with David Brooks. I think this was a much needed loss for a party that has lost its grip. I would love to vote for a moderate republican but all of the social nonsense and hysteria about the president really turned me off. Hopefully they find their way quickly because a one party system does not sound appealing.
I'm actually a little disappointed that Obama won the popular vote - with the way house republicans feel about him, winning it by a small margin won't give him any more capital with them than if he lost it. Obama is going to spend the next four years sitting on the ball, while implementing Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. Between those two laws and the near inevitable recovery of the economy over the next four years, Obama doesn't need a legislative program to walk away with a legacy.
If he'd lost the popular vote, we might finally see some red-state movement on the national popular vote compact, which is arguably what america needs for a new progressive era - presidential elections where the candidates have to speak to fifty states instead of nine.
Terence, the NPVIC merely shifts the focus from a handful of swing states to a handful of densely populated states. ie, New York and California. Under NPVIC, a state's electoral votes could be awarded to a candidate who did not even win a majority of votes in that state. The 'winner take all system' expanded to the national level would also mean that all electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote, meaning obfuscation of by what degree a candidate beats another candidate (which is important in determining whether a winning candidate has a 'mandate' or needs to govern more inclusively). NPVIC also constitutes a large step away from being a federal 'multinational union', which has benefited us as a governing experiment, and brings us closer to being simply a behemoth unitary state on the order of Russia. Federalism is important.
Electoral reform that is actually meaningful will comprise of eliminating the winner take all system in how states award electoral votes, non-partisan congressional redistricting, and implementing instant runoff voting in order to break the two party monopoly on political power.
My $.02: The Republican Party has lost its ability to attract moderates who believe that government is not the solution to all problems, and who generally believe that moral decisions are best left up to individuals. The Democratic Party holds no attraction for those moderates; they're still the party of "big government knows better than you what you should do."
Anyone who thinks Obama has a significant mandate needs to look at the popular vote totals. It's clear a majority prefer Obama and that does mean that things like ObamaCare go forward, but the fact that Romney pulled in so many popular votes should be an indication to both sides that the full Democratic agenda does not enjoy wide support. What I think the vote says is "Compromise and get things done, Damnit!" Of course, the divided Congress with the large number of returning incumbents doesn't bode well for a new spirit of political compromise and effective government.
Anyone paying attention to Nate Silver's 538, knew this election was in the bag for Obama. Or you could just look at the poll aggregates in the swing states. Florida goes for Obama as well. That's what happens when Democrats are +6 in turnout.
I hope we see a return to thoughtful sensible conservatism, America needs a functional GOP. A dysfunctional party cannot grow its base, and that's where Republicans are at right now, in denial and out of touch. So get it together, please.
At one level this can be seen as a sort of Revolution in Military Affairs where the Obama campaign introduced the weapon of analyzing down to the individual preference level and microtargeting with primarily negative messages that were likely to resonate with that individual. Combined with an excellent GOTV operation Obama got enough votes in enough of the states he needed to win. Blue collar whites in the great lakes states stayed home and minorities and single white women turned out in high proportions. The Republicans were thinking Vietnam radar aimed B-52 raids and the Democrats were doing precision guided smart bombs.
Will the Republicans catch on to this strategy? Well, as the joke goes they are the stupid party, although you know what that same joke says about the Democrats.
I'd love to see a third party emerge from people who are fiscally conservative yet socially liberal. A party, for example, that recognizes the need for regulation, the danger of too much regulation, and a willingness to adapt and compromise regulation as needed. A party that can support equal rights for all citizens while simultaneously reforming social security and medicare. A party that can raise or cut taxes as needed. I'd also love to see a competent foreign policy that doesn't demonize non-European nations (cough China cough).
Basically I liked a party to emerge that takes what I like from both the left and the right. Make Teddy Roosevelt the mascot! Glasses and mustaches for everyone.
Dr. Barnett in regards to your comment, "Why do I worry about the GOP? In the end, they are more likely to be the agent of triggering a new progressive era (remember TR) than the Dems."
How do you view the changes brought about by FDR and LBJ? Were they not progressive? Specifically the fiscal changes by FDR, and the civil rights legislation passed under LBJ. I know these two were not apart of the Progressive Era at the turn of the 20th century, but they do seem to be apart of key moments in US history that have changed this nation significantly. Wouldn't there terms indicate that the Democrats no less likely to be an agent of change then their Republican counterparts?
And for the record I think the people are a heck of a lot more important then the party they are affiliated with.