Is the Congressional GOP a Barrier to Electing a GOP President in 2016?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Despite Obama’s current drop in approval ratings, poll after poll gives the Democrats about a 2 point edge in the generic Congressional ballot.  As districts have been pretty much gerrymandered up already, it’ll be tough for either party to make gains, but this number suggests single digit gains for the GOP in the House, if that.  There is a good chance that the GOP will gain the Senate back, but it’s hardly a lock, and it should have be easier than it turned out to be.  The GOP is likely to lose 1-2 Governors net.  Even worse, Hillary Clinton has a double digit lead nationally on just about every GOP challenger, and has solid leads in all the battleground states against all potential rivals.  Not a one of her rivals shows any potential of meaningfully “expanding the map”.

All of this is, IMO, in spite of HRC’s negatives as a candidate.  There’s the “dynasty” issue; Americans always have some discomfort with that.  There’s the Clinton baggage; one wonders how that’ll affect her (although that’s old hat now).  There’s the fact that she’s not real likeable, and she’s hardened into that mold (although she’s not repulsive to the average voter, either).  Yet she’s the favorite, and a formidable one.  In my lifetime, I have never seen such a formidable favorite at this point in an election cycle going into an election where there was no incumbent President on the ballot. 

There is only one reason for this, and that one reason is the irresponsible behavior, over time, of the Congressional Republicans.  What other reason could there be for GOP candidates dragging their tails in the polls?  What other reason could there be for Hillary, the Inevitable.  (She’s almost as inevitable as Vladimir Putin was in Russia’s last Presidential election.)

Why, really, would an independent or weak-partisan voter be enthused with a party who’s style of governing is to sabotage everything when they don’t get their way?  Why would such voters trust a party who is intimidated by a small minority of its crazies who don’t want to do anything that the President of another party could point to as an accomplishment?  Why would voters trust a party who repeatedly refuse to seek solutions because they don’t want to give an opposition President anything but the worst legacy possible? 

What the Congressional GOP hasn’t learned is that voters have figured out their game, and the ones that hold the 2016 key aren’t down with what they’re doing.  They cannot imagine the National GOP not governing in the most narrow manner, and don’t put it past the national GOP badgering a GOP President like they do their own Speaker of the House.  Indeed, John Boehner’s speakership is kind of a window as to what a GOP Congress and a GOP President will be like; it will be the Tea Party tail wagging the dog until something goes bad that can’t be sloughed off on the Democrats.

I personally believe that the GOP will not elect a President until their Congressional wing gets serious about actually governing.  They’re not there now; they’re about power politics and an “I hate government!” rant that the voters in the middle they need view as not rational.  The question I would have is what would it take for the Congressional GOP to come to its senses.

[IceSpear]

Sophie's Choice. If the GOP tries to be a legitimate political party and work in good faith with the democratically elected president, they'll enrage the base and get themselves teabagged. They also risk the teabaggers splitting off into a third party, which would destroy the GOP for good. Since midterms are base elections, they'll face no immediate consequences for their actions. They chose short term satisfaction over long term viability. The fact that they're in such gerrymandered districts that they'll only lose the House in a wave probably isn't helping give them a sense of urgency either. But that only lasts until 2022, not forever.

[henster]

As long as someone from the House/Senate is not on the ticket in 2016 I think they could distance themselves enough if it's a big problem. I could definitely see the GOP going for an all Governor ticket in 2016 and that's probably the smartest move for them.

[Never]

As long as someone from the House/Senate is not on the ticket in 2016 I think they could distance themselves enough if it's a big problem. I could definitely see the GOP going for an all Governor ticket in 2016 and that's probably the smartest move for them.

[Suburbia]

That probably means no Paul, Ryan, McMorris Rodgers, Ayotte, Rubio, Thune or Portman on a VP ticket due to "Washington taint.

[BaconBacon96]

Hell yes. They're pathetic reputation is a large part of the reason the GOP stinks right now.

[henster]

That probably means no Paul, Ryan, McMorris Rodgers, Ayotte, Rubio, Thune or Portman on a VP ticket due to "Washington taint.

That's why I see a Walker/Martinez ticket no "Washington taint" on either of them. Hillary would be wise to choose someone outside of Washington but I doubt she will, not many ideal Governor's for her to choose from.

[bballrox4717]

Yes, and this is why the Republicans are so desperate to elect a Republican Senate (besides the other obvious reasons). Beating back the Tea Party in the first step in showing that they have control over the party, and winning the Senate puts the final pin in the coffin that establishment Republicans are the ones that are capable of winning elections, not the Tea Party.

If the Tea Party is shown to be in control of the Republican Party by November 2016, they'll lose by double digits to Hillary. If the establishment is in control, they at least give themselves the shot to win it.