Game on

[The Duke]

"Now I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it."

-Rush Limbaugh, November 8, 2006



And so begins the battle for the soul of the Republican Party.  Game on.

[bullmoose88]

"Now I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it."

-Rush Limbaugh, November 8, 2006



And so begins the battle for the soul of the Republican Party.  Game on.

Was it necessary to quote Rush?

[MODU]

Well, considering that there are many of us who don't listen to him, having a quote/reference point to the thread is welcomed.

[The Duke]

"Now I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it."

-Rush Limbaugh, November 8, 2006



And so begins the battle for the soul of the Republican Party.  Game on.

Was it necessary to quote Rush?

He has 20 million listeners.  He has an awful lot of sway in the conservative movement, so I think his breaking from the party leadership is an important moment and signifies the official beginning of an inter-party power struggle.

[gorkay]

Now there's loyalty for you. The GOP's backstabbing and infighting over their loss is reaching levels previously attained only by the Democrats.

[MODU]

Now there's loyalty for you. The GOP's backstabbing and infighting over their loss is reaching levels previously attained only by the Democrats.

You're bound to get the knee-jerk Monday-morning quarterbacking by either party that loses following an election.

[Nym90]

I think the power struggle within the party will indeed be fascinating.

For one thing, many of the Republicans who lost Tuesday were moderates. The overall ideology of the GOP caucus in the House and Senate took a shift to the right, especially in the House.

Which way should the GOP go? To the middle to try to recapture swing voters? Or did they lose because they abandoned their principles and need to move hard right?

Personally I think the exit polling clearly proves it was the loss of swing voters that doomed the GOP. The base turned out just fine in this election, but you got killed with independents. A move to the right would only further marginalize your party and ensure you are completely shut out of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast for a generation, just as Dems had been with the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West.

[bullmoose88]

I think the power struggle within the party will indeed be fascinating.

For one thing, many of the Republicans who lost Tuesday were moderates. The overall ideology of the GOP caucus in the House and Senate took a shift to the right, especially in the House.

Which way should the GOP go? To the middle to try to recapture swing voters? Or did they lose because they abandoned their principles and need to move hard right?

Personally I think the exit polling clearly proves it was the loss of swing voters that doomed the GOP. The base turned out just fine in this election, but you got killed with independents. A move to the right would only further marginalize your party and ensure you are completely shut out of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast for a generation, just as Dems had been with the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West.

As the Dems showed...gotta go with a 50 state strategy...maybe you don't pour a ton of money into say massachusetts, but you have to field challengers that fit the area, and hope for the best.

[Saxwsylvania]

Any sensible GOPer will tell you that the problem was not that they were not far enough to the right, but that they failed to downsize big government like they promised and focused on wedge issues that turned off independents.  Over the next few weeks I think we'll see the GOP going back to their roots.

Interestingly, I think this will make the Republicans more socially libertarian and spark a McCain backlash when they realize he's not really on their side.

[Storebought]

I think the power struggle within the party will indeed be fascinating.

For one thing, many of the Republicans who lost Tuesday were moderates. The overall ideology of the GOP caucus in the House and Senate took a shift to the right, especially in the House.

Which way should the GOP go? To the middle to try to recapture swing voters? Or did they lose because they abandoned their principles and need to move hard right?

Personally I think the exit polling clearly proves it was the loss of swing voters that doomed the GOP. The base turned out just fine in this election, but you got killed with independents. A move to the right would only further marginalize your party and ensure you are completely shut out of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast for a generation, just as Dems had been with the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West.

As the Dems showed...gotta go with a 50 state strategy...maybe you don't pour a ton of money into say massachusetts, but you have to field challengers that fit the area, and hope for the best.

That's just it: Republicans have too much baggage (i.e., the very word "Republican" brings to mind "conservative", however defined) to simply play the field. The GOP can never win an election by default.

[David S]

"Now I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it."

-Rush Limbaugh, November 8, 2006



And so begins the battle for the soul of the Republican Party.  Game on.

It seems to me that Limbaugh abandoned conservatism to support Republicans. Now he is admitting to it. Maybe he'll learn the lesson, maybe not.

[Colin]

I think the power struggle within the party will indeed be fascinating.

For one thing, many of the Republicans who lost Tuesday were moderates. The overall ideology of the GOP caucus in the House and Senate took a shift to the right, especially in the House.

Which way should the GOP go? To the middle to try to recapture swing voters? Or did they lose because they abandoned their principles and need to move hard right?

Personally I think the exit polling clearly proves it was the loss of swing voters that doomed the GOP. The base turned out just fine in this election, but you got killed with independents. A move to the right would only further marginalize your party and ensure you are completely shut out of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast for a generation, just as Dems had been with the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West.

As the Dems showed...gotta go with a 50 state strategy...maybe you don't pour a ton of money into say massachusetts, but you have to field challengers that fit the area, and hope for the best.

I do have to say that Howard Dean was right. I never thought that his "50 state strategy" could actually bring anything close to noticeable results but he has, in his time as leader, brought the Democrats into areas like Indiana, Montana, Missouri, and Kansas even, that had not even been in play before. While the Republicans caused most of their downfall they wouldn't have lost if the Democrats had run leftists everywhere. They recruited candidates that were the opposite of what their opponents accused them of, they recruited Veterans, social conservatives, moderates, people who could display a tough edge that had left the party before.

The Republicans now need to find opposite numbers to the Webbs, Testers, and Harold Ford's of the Democrats. They need people who can turn out independents and they need to conform to the areas that they are running in. You can't run Conservatives in Massachusetts or strong economic conservatives in places like Michigan. If you are looking for a victory the candidate must fit the constituency, or a majority of the constituency. This would lead to a more ideologically diverse GOP, in much the same way as the Democrats will now be more ideologically diverse, but it will keep you in the majority.

[bullmoose88]

I think the power struggle within the party will indeed be fascinating.

For one thing, many of the Republicans who lost Tuesday were moderates. The overall ideology of the GOP caucus in the House and Senate took a shift to the right, especially in the House.

Which way should the GOP go? To the middle to try to recapture swing voters? Or did they lose because they abandoned their principles and need to move hard right?

Personally I think the exit polling clearly proves it was the loss of swing voters that doomed the GOP. The base turned out just fine in this election, but you got killed with independents. A move to the right would only further marginalize your party and ensure you are completely shut out of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast for a generation, just as Dems had been with the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West.

As the Dems showed...gotta go with a 50 state strategy...maybe you don't pour a ton of money into say massachusetts, but you have to field challengers that fit the area, and hope for the best.

That's just it: Republicans have too much baggage (i.e., the very word "Republican" brings to mind "conservative", however defined) to simply play the field. The GOP can never win an election by default.

Possibly true...but the party can't afford to wall itself in and fight only in the south, interior west and some areas of the midwest...you gotta keep the dems honest...and by doing so perhaps you change the association Republican-conservative...at least enough to be semi competitive.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You can't run Conservatives in Massachusetts or strong economic conservatives in places like Michigan.

You can do actually. It's just that it's not a very clever idea:

[Storebought]

I think the power struggle within the party will indeed be fascinating.

For one thing, many of the Republicans who lost Tuesday were moderates. The overall ideology of the GOP caucus in the House and Senate took a shift to the right, especially in the House.

Which way should the GOP go? To the middle to try to recapture swing voters? Or did they lose because they abandoned their principles and need to move hard right?

Personally I think the exit polling clearly proves it was the loss of swing voters that doomed the GOP. The base turned out just fine in this election, but you got killed with independents. A move to the right would only further marginalize your party and ensure you are completely shut out of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast for a generation, just as Dems had been with the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West.

As the Dems showed...gotta go with a 50 state strategy...maybe you don't pour a ton of money into say massachusetts, but you have to field challengers that fit the area, and hope for the best.

I do have to say that Howard Dean was right. I never thought that his "50 state strategy" could actually bring anything close to noticeable results but he has, in his time as leader, brought the Democrats into areas like Indiana, Montana, Missouri, and Kansas even, that had not even been in play before. While the Republicans caused most of their downfall they wouldn't have lost if the Democrats had run leftists everywhere. They recruited candidates that were the opposite of what their opponents accused them of, they recruited Veterans, social conservatives, moderates, people who could display a tough edge that had left the party before.

The Republicans now need to find opposite numbers to the Webbs, Testers, and Harold Ford's of the Democrats. They need people who can turn out independents and they need to conform to the areas that they are running in. You can't run Conservatives in Massachusetts or strong economic conservatives in places like Michigan. If you are looking for a victory the candidate must fit the constituency, or a majority of the constituency. This would lead to a more ideologically diverse GOP, in much the same way as the Democrats will now be more ideologically diverse, but it will keep you in the majority.

But it was precisely those ideologically center-left Republicans who lost (Sen. DeWine, Reps. Nancy Johnson, Northup, Hostettler, Bass, etc.)

If left-leaning independents would toss incumbent Republicans who were, in fact, the Northeast/Midwest versions of a Webb or Tester, then I doubt strongly that they will replace their current liberal Democrat with some Republican unknown two years hence.  

[bullmoose88]

I think the power struggle within the party will indeed be fascinating.

For one thing, many of the Republicans who lost Tuesday were moderates. The overall ideology of the GOP caucus in the House and Senate took a shift to the right, especially in the House.

Which way should the GOP go? To the middle to try to recapture swing voters? Or did they lose because they abandoned their principles and need to move hard right?

Personally I think the exit polling clearly proves it was the loss of swing voters that doomed the GOP. The base turned out just fine in this election, but you got killed with independents. A move to the right would only further marginalize your party and ensure you are completely shut out of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast for a generation, just as Dems had been with the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West.

As the Dems showed...gotta go with a 50 state strategy...maybe you don't pour a ton of money into say massachusetts, but you have to field challengers that fit the area, and hope for the best.

I do have to say that Howard Dean was right. I never thought that his "50 state strategy" could actually bring anything close to noticeable results but he has, in his time as leader, brought the Democrats into areas like Indiana, Montana, Missouri, and Kansas even, that had not even been in play before. While the Republicans caused most of their downfall they wouldn't have lost if the Democrats had run leftists everywhere. They recruited candidates that were the opposite of what their opponents accused them of, they recruited Veterans, social conservatives, moderates, people who could display a tough edge that had left the party before.

The Republicans now need to find opposite numbers to the Webbs, Testers, and Harold Ford's of the Democrats. They need people who can turn out independents and they need to conform to the areas that they are running in. You can't run Conservatives in Massachusetts or strong economic conservatives in places like Michigan. If you are looking for a victory the candidate must fit the constituency, or a majority of the constituency. This would lead to a more ideologically diverse GOP, in much the same way as the Democrats will now be more ideologically diverse, but it will keep you in the majority.

But it was precisely those ideologically center-left Republicans who lost (Sen. DeWine, Reps. Nancy Johnson, Northup, Hostettler, Bass, etc.)

If left-leaning independents would toss incumbent Republicans who were, in fact, the Northeast/Midwest versions of a Webb or Tester, then I doubt strongly that they will replace their current liberal Democrat with some Republican unknown two years hence.  

True, but I'm, personally, hoping that the GOP can reform itself where it doesn't get the automatic association with conservative.

Of course such a scenario could come about where the association doesn't automatically draw a knee-jerk negative reaction in those areas...but to me that seems equally difficult if not harder.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think the power struggle within the party will indeed be fascinating.

For one thing, many of the Republicans who lost Tuesday were moderates. The overall ideology of the GOP caucus in the House and Senate took a shift to the right, especially in the House.

Which way should the GOP go? To the middle to try to recapture swing voters? Or did they lose because they abandoned their principles and need to move hard right?

Personally I think the exit polling clearly proves it was the loss of swing voters that doomed the GOP. The base turned out just fine in this election, but you got killed with independents. A move to the right would only further marginalize your party and ensure you are completely shut out of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast for a generation, just as Dems had been with the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West.

As the Dems showed...gotta go with a 50 state strategy...maybe you don't pour a ton of money into say massachusetts, but you have to field challengers that fit the area, and hope for the best.

I do have to say that Howard Dean was right. I never thought that his "50 state strategy" could actually bring anything close to noticeable results but he has, in his time as leader, brought the Democrats into areas like Indiana, Montana, Missouri, and Kansas even, that had not even been in play before. While the Republicans caused most of their downfall they wouldn't have lost if the Democrats had run leftists everywhere. They recruited candidates that were the opposite of what their opponents accused them of, they recruited Veterans, social conservatives, moderates, people who could display a tough edge that had left the party before.

The Republicans now need to find opposite numbers to the Webbs, Testers, and Harold Ford's of the Democrats. They need people who can turn out independents and they need to conform to the areas that they are running in. You can't run Conservatives in Massachusetts or strong economic conservatives in places like Michigan. If you are looking for a victory the candidate must fit the constituency, or a majority of the constituency. This would lead to a more ideologically diverse GOP, in much the same way as the Democrats will now be more ideologically diverse, but it will keep you in the majority.

You mean try to get liberal votes? Haha, I'll believe it when I see it.

But yeah, this Republican party is dead in a lot of the country. Their only hope is for the national Republican party to be less batsh**t crazy.

[Colin]

I think the power struggle within the party will indeed be fascinating.

For one thing, many of the Republicans who lost Tuesday were moderates. The overall ideology of the GOP caucus in the House and Senate took a shift to the right, especially in the House.

Which way should the GOP go? To the middle to try to recapture swing voters? Or did they lose because they abandoned their principles and need to move hard right?

Personally I think the exit polling clearly proves it was the loss of swing voters that doomed the GOP. The base turned out just fine in this election, but you got killed with independents. A move to the right would only further marginalize your party and ensure you are completely shut out of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast for a generation, just as Dems had been with the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West.

As the Dems showed...gotta go with a 50 state strategy...maybe you don't pour a ton of money into say massachusetts, but you have to field challengers that fit the area, and hope for the best.

I do have to say that Howard Dean was right. I never thought that his "50 state strategy" could actually bring anything close to noticeable results but he has, in his time as leader, brought the Democrats into areas like Indiana, Montana, Missouri, and Kansas even, that had not even been in play before. While the Republicans caused most of their downfall they wouldn't have lost if the Democrats had run leftists everywhere. They recruited candidates that were the opposite of what their opponents accused them of, they recruited Veterans, social conservatives, moderates, people who could display a tough edge that had left the party before.

The Republicans now need to find opposite numbers to the Webbs, Testers, and Harold Ford's of the Democrats. They need people who can turn out independents and they need to conform to the areas that they are running in. You can't run Conservatives in Massachusetts or strong economic conservatives in places like Michigan. If you are looking for a victory the candidate must fit the constituency, or a majority of the constituency. This would lead to a more ideologically diverse GOP, in much the same way as the Democrats will now be more ideologically diverse, but it will keep you in the majority.

You mean try to get liberal votes? Haha, I'll believe it when I see it.

But yeah, this Republican party is dead in a lot of the country. Their only hope is for the national Republican party to be less batsh**t crazy.

Well not liberal votes per say. Moderate ones, especially up in the Northeast, the moderates in the Northeast were hurt by the overall issues of the election and the position of the Republican Party.

But in most areas of the country the Republicans, if they want to win, should become more Populist. They should become less economically right wing and start to woo voters through a mix of economic centrism and social conservativism, which would be a winning, though thoroughly horrible, combination in America. It would mean possibly pissing off groups like the Chambers of Commerce through support of higher minimum wages but it would win seats for the party. As I've always said if a party were to become Populist in America it would completely dominate. Currently its just whoever sounds more populist that wins but if a party actually institutes those ideas it would trounce all opposition.

[Storebought]

I think the power struggle within the party will indeed be fascinating.

For one thing, many of the Republicans who lost Tuesday were moderates. The overall ideology of the GOP caucus in the House and Senate took a shift to the right, especially in the House.

Which way should the GOP go? To the middle to try to recapture swing voters? Or did they lose because they abandoned their principles and need to move hard right?

Personally I think the exit polling clearly proves it was the loss of swing voters that doomed the GOP. The base turned out just fine in this election, but you got killed with independents. A move to the right would only further marginalize your party and ensure you are completely shut out of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast for a generation, just as Dems had been with the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West.

As the Dems showed...gotta go with a 50 state strategy...maybe you don't pour a ton of money into say massachusetts, but you have to field challengers that fit the area, and hope for the best.

I do have to say that Howard Dean was right. I never thought that his "50 state strategy" could actually bring anything close to noticeable results but he has, in his time as leader, brought the Democrats into areas like Indiana, Montana, Missouri, and Kansas even, that had not even been in play before. While the Republicans caused most of their downfall they wouldn't have lost if the Democrats had run leftists everywhere. They recruited candidates that were the opposite of what their opponents accused them of, they recruited Veterans, social conservatives, moderates, people who could display a tough edge that had left the party before.

The Republicans now need to find opposite numbers to the Webbs, Testers, and Harold Ford's of the Democrats. They need people who can turn out independents and they need to conform to the areas that they are running in. You can't run Conservatives in Massachusetts or strong economic conservatives in places like Michigan. If you are looking for a victory the candidate must fit the constituency, or a majority of the constituency. This would lead to a more ideologically diverse GOP, in much the same way as the Democrats will now be more ideologically diverse, but it will keep you in the majority.

But it was precisely those ideologically center-left Republicans who lost (Sen. DeWine, Reps. Nancy Johnson, Northup, Hostettler, Bass, etc.)

If left-leaning independents would toss incumbent Republicans who were, in fact, the Northeast/Midwest versions of a Webb or Tester, then I doubt strongly that they will replace their current liberal Democrat with some Republican unknown two years hence.  

True, but I'm, personally, hoping that the GOP can reform itself where it doesn't get the automatic association with conservative.

Of course such a scenario could come about where the association doesn't automatically draw a knee-jerk negative reaction in those areas...but to me that seems equally difficult if not harder.

Or, the definition of "conservative" must change in a way that swing voters in the mid-Atlantic and the industrial Midwest don't spontaneously retch when they reach the end of the syllogism "The GOP is conservative. Conservatives are blank. Therefore, the GOP is blank". But that will come about only after three or more electoral defeats.

What you would prefer is the rebranding of the party itself (and, yes, the GOP is a brand ... always has been) away from a specific ideology. And I agree with your assessment on the likelihood of that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think the power struggle within the party will indeed be fascinating.

For one thing, many of the Republicans who lost Tuesday were moderates. The overall ideology of the GOP caucus in the House and Senate took a shift to the right, especially in the House.

Which way should the GOP go? To the middle to try to recapture swing voters? Or did they lose because they abandoned their principles and need to move hard right?

Personally I think the exit polling clearly proves it was the loss of swing voters that doomed the GOP. The base turned out just fine in this election, but you got killed with independents. A move to the right would only further marginalize your party and ensure you are completely shut out of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast for a generation, just as Dems had been with the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West.

As the Dems showed...gotta go with a 50 state strategy...maybe you don't pour a ton of money into say massachusetts, but you have to field challengers that fit the area, and hope for the best.

I do have to say that Howard Dean was right. I never thought that his "50 state strategy" could actually bring anything close to noticeable results but he has, in his time as leader, brought the Democrats into areas like Indiana, Montana, Missouri, and Kansas even, that had not even been in play before. While the Republicans caused most of their downfall they wouldn't have lost if the Democrats had run leftists everywhere. They recruited candidates that were the opposite of what their opponents accused them of, they recruited Veterans, social conservatives, moderates, people who could display a tough edge that had left the party before.

The Republicans now need to find opposite numbers to the Webbs, Testers, and Harold Ford's of the Democrats. They need people who can turn out independents and they need to conform to the areas that they are running in. You can't run Conservatives in Massachusetts or strong economic conservatives in places like Michigan. If you are looking for a victory the candidate must fit the constituency, or a majority of the constituency. This would lead to a more ideologically diverse GOP, in much the same way as the Democrats will now be more ideologically diverse, but it will keep you in the majority.

You mean try to get liberal votes? Haha, I'll believe it when I see it.

But yeah, this Republican party is dead in a lot of the country. Their only hope is for the national Republican party to be less batsh**t crazy.

Well not liberal votes per say. Moderate ones, especially up in the Northeast, the moderates in the Northeast were hurt by the overall issues of the election and the position of the Republican Party.

But in most areas of the country the Republicans, if they want to win, should become more Populist. They should become less economically right wing and start to woo voters through a mix of economic centrism and social conservativism, which would be a winning, though thoroughly horrible, combination in America. It would mean possibly pissing off groups like the Chambers of Commerce through support of higher minimum wages but it would win seats for the party. As I've always said if a party were to become Populist in America it would completely dominate. Currently its just whoever sounds more populist that wins but if a party actually institutes those ideas it would trounce all opposition.

A lot of populist leaning moderate liberals won on Tuesday. They're in the Democratic party.

[nlm]

I agree the fight for what the GOP stands for has begun. In my opinion we are the party of Lincoln, McKinley, T.R., Eisenhower and Reagan. A party that promotes fiscal conservatism, hawkish foreign policy and personal freedoms, morals and responsibility. This is my Republican party and I will try my best to make sure we run someone like Guiliani, Romney or Rice who I feel would best represent my republican party.

I agree the fight for what the GOP stands for has begun. In my opinion we should be a party that promotes fiscal conservatism, small government, smart and engaged foreign policy, personal freedoms, and personal responsibility.

There. That works better for me.

[Storebought]

I agree the fight for what the GOP stands for has begun. In my opinion we are the party of Lincoln, McKinley, T.R., Eisenhower and Reagan. A party that promotes fiscal conservatism, hawkish foreign policy and personal freedoms, morals and responsibility. This is my Republican party and I will try my best to make sure we run someone like Guiliani, Romney or Rice who I feel would best represent my republican party.

But one must admit that the GOP has always had its shares of Grants, Hayeses, Blaines, Hardings, and Bushes. And it has recovered each time (well, hopefully ...)

[Conan]

Social conservatism did the republican party in. They cant win in the Northeast with it. Your going to have to have Rockefeller republicans.

[NewFederalist]

I remember all the post 1964 excitement that the GOP was finished because they were reduced to 140 House members and 32 Senators. At the same time they only held 17 governorships (actually an increase of one as a result of the '64 election). If those kind of numbers didn't kill off the Republicans, this election cycle's results sure won't.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Social conservatism did the republican party in.

No it didn't. Have a look at the districts they lost this year, or at the county maps from the Senate races they lost... or for that matter at the districts they were expected to lose, but didn't.