Should the Republicans lose in 2012

[Kevin]

Hypothetically speaking if someone like Bachmann get's nominated next year and Obama wins by a considerable margin what happens within the GOP politically? Additionally, to add more let's say the same Tea Party like candidates are nominated in some critical Senate races and fall short of winning, and the Republicans lose a number of seats in the House?

So what happens to the direction of the GOP if next year they fail to beat a vulnerable incumbent Obama?

[sg0508]

For people who want the GOP to return to its roots, you actually want this.  You want them to lose and lose badly in a year where it's perceived that all the key factors (economy) favor them to win. 

At that point, they'll have to do something to re-invent the party.  They'll realize they just can't win with the current platform.

[5280]

They lose in 2012, make sure to reinvent the party in 2016 and the Democrats don't get in WH for another 8 years.

[Heimdal]

For people who want the GOP to return to its roots, you actually want this.  You want them to lose and lose badly in a year where it's perceived that all the key factors (economy) favor them to win. 

At that point, they'll have to do something to re-invent the party.  They'll realize they just can't win with the current platform.

Which roots do you mean? The small government Conservatism of Coolidge and Taft, the Progressive Conservatism of Roosevelt or the dime-store Liberalism of the Eisenhower years?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd say Eisenhower was more Conservative than TR, but whatever.

Yeah, it's tough to define what the "roots" of the Republican party are given how diverse both parties gave been for the past 150+ years.

[Del Tachi]

Being a die-hard liberal "Rockefeller" Republican myself, I kind of hope that this happens.  That way the Nixonians and neocons can reassert their dominance over the GOP, muhahahaha!

[Lulz]

Hypothetically speaking if someone like Bachmann get's nominated next year...
 

Stop right there.  This will never happen, so any discussion that follows that statement is pointless.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

So what happens to the direction of the GOP if next year they fail to beat vulnerable incumbent Obama?

Wishful thinking. At least at this point.

[Hotblack Desiato]

Whoever wins in 2012 will wish they hadn't.

[Misoir]

If Obama winning another four years and the Republicans losing bad in 2012 is the only way to pull the party away from its current platform I am all for it. Hopefully we can put these Evangelicals at the back of the bus. The GOP was not a party designed to be Populist in rhetoric or appearance as it has been (or at least trying to be) since 1980. For me it does not matter if the party becomes TR Progressive, Eisenhower Moderate, or Taft Conservative (this being my preference though) so long as these lunatics are thrown out of leadership.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The recent string of newbie moderate hero Republicans is getting very annoying.

[Hotblack Desiato]

So what happens to the direction of the GOP if next year they fail to beat a vulnerable incumbent Obama?

It helps discredit establishment republican moderates and neoconservative types. For a possible analogy to the evolution of the party under a second Obama term compare Ford's platform in 1976 with Reagan's in 1980. What we see coming out of this is a GOP that's more along the lines of what the tea party types would want.

Personally I would like such a shift in the platform since it'd mean a Republican Party that's no longer the democrats under a different name.

[Rollback]

Being a die-hard liberal "Rockefeller" Republican myself, I kind of hope that this happens.  That way the Nixonians and neocons can reassert their dominance over the GOP, muhahahaha!

"reassert"?

Rockefeller Republicans and modern-day Nixonians have far more control in today's Republican Party than grassroots conservatives and the tea party. Genuine conservatives haven't had much say in any Republican administrations since Coolidge.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Being a die-hard liberal "Rockefeller" Republican myself, I kind of hope that this happens.  That way the Nixonians and neocons can reassert their dominance over the GOP, muhahahaha!

"reassert"?

Rockefeller Republicans and modern-day Nixonians have far more control in today's Republican Party than grassroots conservatives and the tea party. Genuine conservatives haven't had much say in any Republican administrations since Coolidge.

It all depends on your definition of Conservative. What's yours? What's his? The range goes from all-out Libertarian to socially and foreign policy interventionist and anywhere in between.

[Mechaman]

Being a die-hard liberal "Rockefeller" Republican myself, I kind of hope that this happens.  That way the Nixonians and neocons can reassert their dominance over the GOP, muhahahaha!

That way there would be almost no foreseeable difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party!  What a great plan old chap!

[Mechaman]

The recent string of newbie moderate hero Republicans is getting very annoying.

The fact that some of them think that Nixonian or Bush Republicanism is a good thing is also very concerning IMO.  Nevermind that Nixon got us off the Gold Standard and Bush exploded our deficit.

[Kevin]

So what happens to the direction of the GOP if next year they fail to beat a vulnerable incumbent Obama?

It helps discredit establishment republican moderates and neoconservative types. For a possible analogy to the evolution of the party under a second Obama term compare Ford's platform in 1976 with Reagan's in 1980. What we see coming out of this is a GOP that's more along the lines of what the tea party types would want.

Personally I would like such a shift in the platform since it'd mean a Republican Party that's no longer the democrats under a different name.

What makes you say that?

[Lincoln Republican]

The recent string of newbie moderate hero Republicans is getting very annoying.

As the founder and leader of the Atlasian Rockefeller Republican Party, and sadly the only member so far, I find this most welcoming and refreshing.

A hearty welcome and best wishes to all of you.

[Hotblack Desiato]

So what happens to the direction of the GOP if next year they fail to beat a vulnerable incumbent Obama?

It helps discredit establishment republican moderates and neoconservative types. For a possible analogy to the evolution of the party under a second Obama term compare Ford's platform in 1976 with Reagan's in 1980. What we see coming out of this is a GOP that's more along the lines of what the tea party types would want.

Personally I would like such a shift in the platform since it'd mean a Republican Party that's no longer the democrats under a different name.

What makes you say that?

Say what? The fact that the Republicans as they stand are virtually indistinguishable from the democrats in practice? That's simple. Allow me to list a few historical case studies.

Ronald Reagan: He talked a good game in his campaigns but didn't do much in practice on taxes, regulation, social security in practice.
George W. Bush: He ran on a platform of no more Clintonian nation-building and ended up doing an over the top response to 9/11 which included two long wars, when if he was consistent he would have just hunted down Al Qaeda's top brass, gotten us out of there in 1-2 years and not bothered with Iraq.

This isn't even getting into Bush's domestic statism with the DHS, the TSA, Medicare part D, the bailouts.

[Rollback]

So what happens to the direction of the GOP if next year they fail to beat a vulnerable incumbent Obama?

It helps discredit establishment republican moderates and neoconservative types. For a possible analogy to the evolution of the party under a second Obama term compare Ford's platform in 1976 with Reagan's in 1980. What we see coming out of this is a GOP that's more along the lines of what the tea party types would want.

Personally I would like such a shift in the platform since it'd mean a Republican Party that's no longer the democrats under a different name.

What makes you say that?

Say what? The fact that the Republicans as they stand are virtually indistinguishable from the democrats in practice? That's simple. Allow me to list a few historical case studies.

Ronald Reagan: He talked a good game in his campaigns but didn't do much in practice on taxes, regulation, social security in practice.
George W. Bush: He ran on a platform of no more Clintonian nation-building and ended up doing an over the top response to 9/11 which included two long wars, when if he was consistent he would have just hunted down Al Qaeda's top brass, gotten us out of there in 1-2 years and not bothered with Iraq.

This isn't even getting into Bush's domestic statism with the DHS, the TSA, Medicare part D, the bailouts.

^^^

Romney and Huntsman will undoubtedly continue the cycle.

[Hotblack Desiato]

So what happens to the direction of the GOP if next year they fail to beat a vulnerable incumbent Obama?

It helps discredit establishment republican moderates and neoconservative types. For a possible analogy to the evolution of the party under a second Obama term compare Ford's platform in 1976 with Reagan's in 1980. What we see coming out of this is a GOP that's more along the lines of what the tea party types would want.

Personally I would like such a shift in the platform since it'd mean a Republican Party that's no longer the democrats under a different name.

What makes you say that?

Say what? The fact that the Republicans as they stand are virtually indistinguishable from the democrats in practice? That's simple. Allow me to list a few historical case studies.

Ronald Reagan: He talked a good game in his campaigns but didn't do much in practice on taxes, regulation, social security in practice.
George W. Bush: He ran on a platform of no more Clintonian nation-building and ended up doing an over the top response to 9/11 which included two long wars, when if he was consistent he would have just hunted down Al Qaeda's top brass, gotten us out of there in 1-2 years and not bothered with Iraq.

This isn't even getting into Bush's domestic statism with the DHS, the TSA, Medicare part D, the bailouts.

^^^

Romney and Huntsman will undoubtedly continue the cycle.

Yeah.

It wouldn't be a stretch to see a "moderate"/liberal GOP in the next 20 years evolving from our current one.

[Bull Moose Base]

The Tea Party already cost the GOP a senate majority in 2010 and yet congressmen are still so afraid of primaries they're willing to default on our debt.  I don't think Obama's re-election would change the party much.  If the GOP nominates Bachmann or Perry then loses in 2012, I could very easily see the party nominating Christie or Rubio in 2016. In fact, I'd put those 2 as more likely 2016 nominees right after Jeb, Huckabee, the 2012 runner-up and the 2012 running mate (if it's not one of the previous folks on this list).  I'd consider all of those way more likely than them turning to Huntsman.

[sg0508]

The Tea Party already cost the GOP a senate majority in 2010 and yet congressmen are still so afraid of primaries they're willing to default on our debt.  I don't think Obama's re-election would change the party much.  If the GOP nominates Bachmann or Perry then loses in 2012, I could very easily see the party nominating Christie or Rubio in 2016. In fact, I'd put those 2 as more likely 2016 nominees right after Jeb, Huckabee, the 2012 runner-up and the 2012 running mate (if it's not one of the previous folks on this list).  I'd consider all of those way more likely than them turning to Huntsman.

The GOP is dangerous to itself. It blew it in 2010 by nominating three nutcases in CO, NV and DE, respectively and threw away three easy Senate pickups. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I see the revisionist history is hard at work again.

1. Even if you give the GOP DE, CO, and NV, they are still 1 seat short of majority because of VP Joe Biden. The tea party did not blow the Senate in 2010 as the Senate was not up for grabs, we were too far down coming out of 2008 to take it back. Unless you are trying to claim that CA and WA would have gone Republican were it not for the tea party. In CA that is just ridiculous considering the tea party guy lost (DeVore). Granted Fiorina wasn't the best choice, but it was her money that gave it too her over Campbell, not the tea party. In WA, Rossi had his problems but it wasn't like there was a better choice in the primary.

It must be remembered that even with the tea party, it took the implosion of Lowden to give Angle the nomination in NV. In Colorado, Buck was set to win that race had it not been for a very incovenient phone recording from 1999. Such a thing can happen to any candidate, and it is not the first time CO's Senate seat slipped away because of a flawed candidate (see 2004). So that leaves you with DE. 48 Senate seats is no more a majority then 47 is.


2. Were it not for the tea party forcing the confrontation over the debt ceiling, I am confident nothing would ever be done to bring our fiscal house in order long term, the politicians are too damn concerned about the their own reelections to do that unless they are being forced to address it by an ideological movement. It is a testament to the decline of our political structure long before the tea party arouse. It's a desperate measure to deal with problems of desperate times, and wouldn't be acceptable under any other circumstances.


3. To answer the topic, NO. The GOP shouldn't lose on purpose and if unemployment doesn't start going down soon, they shouldn't lose period.

[Heimdal]

I see the revisionist history is hard at work again.

1. Even if you give the GOP DE, CO, and NV, they are still 1 seat short of majority because of VP Joe Biden. The tea party did not blow the Senate in 2010 as the Senate was not up for grabs, we were too far down coming out of 2008 to take it back. Unless you are trying to claim that CA and WA would have gone Republican were it not for the tea party. In CA that is just ridiculous considering the tea party guy lost (DeVore). Granted Fiorina wasn't the best choice, but it was her money that gave it too her over Campbell, not the tea party. In WA, Rossi had his problems but it wasn't like there was a better choice in the primary.

It must be remembered that even with the tea party, it took the implosion of Lowden to give Angle the nomination in NV. In Colorado, Buck was set to win that race had it not been for a very incovenient phone recording from 1999. Such a thing can happen to any candidate, and it is not the first time CO's Senate seat slipped away because of a flawed candidate (see 2004). So that leaves you with DE. 48 Senate seats is no more a majority then 47 is.


2. Were it not for the tea party forcing the confrontation over the debt ceiling, I am confident nothing would ever be done to bring our fiscal house in order long term, the politicians are too damn concerned about the their own reelections to do that unless they are being forced to address it by an ideological movement. It is a testament to the decline of our political structure long before the tea party arouse. It's a desperate measure to deal with problems of desperate times, and wouldn't be acceptable under any other circumstances.


3. To answer the topic, NO. The GOP shouldn't lose on purpose and if unemployment doesn't start going down soon, they shouldn't lose period.