Republicans could lose power until 2020

[Kevin]

Michael Steele, a rising star in the party and one of its most prominent African Americans, admitted it "will get hammered" next week in Congressional races.

"We could very well be looking at a situation where we don't get it back by 2016 or even 2020," said Mr Steele. "So we could be looking at 12 years out like the Tories.

"They went through a long dark winter of reassessment and realignment, but now David Cameron has got himself in a position where he looks like he is going to be the next prime minister."

He praised the Tory leader, whom he met 18 months ago, for combining toughness and a "delicate touch" and having the wisdom to listen to "the people of England and understand what is required" at a particular moment in the party's history.

"I have marvelled how the Tory leadership has been able to do that," he continued. "That is the model for the Republican Party to regenerate ourselves and move forward."

As head of training for Republican Congressional candidates, Mr Steele holds a key position in the party. A former lieutenant (deputy) governor in Maryland, he is one of its most popular leaders and was given a rousing reception for his speech at the last month's convention in St Paul, Minnesota when he urged increased domestic drilling for oil and gas. He started a rallying cry of "drill, baby, drill" that has featured at every McCain or Sarah Palin event since.

Mr Steele is likely to be involved heavily in reviving the party, which lost control of both the House of Representatives and Senate in the 2006 midterm elections and is set to see the Democratic majority grow in both chambers next week, when all 435 House seats and 30 senate seats are up for grabs.

In the senate the Democrats could win 60 seats or more, the vital filibuster-proof majority that would reduce Republicans to the sort of ineffective opposition status suffered by the Conservatives in 1997 after Tony Blair's first landslide.

Unlike many Republicans, Mr Steele still thinks Senator John McCain could eke out a victory in the battle for the White House.

But if Senator Barack Obama also takes the White House, which he is heavy favourite to do, the Republicans' seclusion would be complete.

Mr Steele said the first challenge for the Republicans was to admit that their demise was all of their own making.

Like Margaret Thatcher and the Tories, Republicans dominated Congress (though not always the White House) through the 1980s and 1990s, running as the party of low taxes, fiscal control and small government.

But after too long in power the party lost its way. "After George W Bush was elected we became the party of big government," said Mr Steele.

"It's anathema to grow government by 40 per cent, as we have, and to grow a $10 trillion deficit, as we have. No wonder people look at us cockeyed now when we talk about lower taxes and small government."

He said that the key reason for the Tories' progress under Mr Cameron was learning to be as relevant to as much of the electorate as possible.

"There is going to be a lot of soul searching about how we go about re-engaging with the American people," said Mr Steele, who is 50 and grew up in Washington with his mother, who worked in a launderette, and stepfather.

On Tuesday he will be among only four or five per cent of African Americans voting for Mr McCain. The community is set to vote even more heavily Democratic than usual, in support of Mr Obama' historic bid to become the first black president.

"I am proud of Barack as an African-American but I am doing everything in my power to defeat him," said Mr Steele, who has previously urged the community not to get caught up in the glamour of the first black nominee. "I disagree with him on everything: health care, taxes, the war, the environment, you name it.


I think he may have more then a point regarding this?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/republicans/3280613/Senior-black-Republican-warns-party-could-lose-power-until-2020.html

[Хahar 🤔]

2020 seems about right.

[cannonia]

Like Margaret Thatcher and the Tories, Republicans dominated Congress (though not always the White House) through the 1980s and 1990s

Huh?

[MR maverick]

Micheal Steel would be in a better spot if he stayed far away from the Foxnews channel.

He ain't winning nothing if he can't get a decent amount of black support, and being around the McCain/ George Wallace campaign pretty much will kill any chances of getting black support.

[cannonia]

Micheal Steel would be in a better spot if he stayed far away from the Foxnews channel.

He ain't winning nothing if he can't get a decent amount of black support, and being around the McCain/ George Wallace campaign pretty much will kill any chances of getting black support.

Huh?

[Person Man]

2020....maybe. An equal chance of it being 2028 as it is it will be 2016, though. Michael Steele really isn't in the place to talk about "Smaller Government", though.....if he wants "small government", he's in the wrong party, then. He should be a Libertarian.

[MR maverick]

Micheal Steel would be in a better spot if he stayed far away from the Foxnews channel.

He ain't winning nothing if he can't get a decent amount of black support, and being around the McCain/ George Wallace campaign pretty much will kill any chances of getting black support.

Huh?

Micheal steel is hurting himself by having anything to do with the McCain/ anti-Obama campaign.

Lets face it Foxnews, and the far right will be labled as racist if McCain wins and will be on the wrong side of history.  Atleast thats the way black folks will see it.  They never forgave the gop for Al Gores loss and still to this day think that Bush stole the election.  Look at the early voting lines this year.

The democrats years later if Steel attempted to run would hang every sound bite of him bashing Obama around his neck and it would dog his campaign.  Right now if iam a republican I stay far away from McCain's campaign if I plan to run later.   

I know Steele is a republican and it would seem that he wouldn't need black support, however don't kid yourself.  If its Warner vs Steele  you will see the reverse of what happened with Hillary supporters voting for McCain this year or atleast was going to.   Remember The south was once Democratic, and in many ways still is when the right type of democrat comes along.   Look at what Clinton was able to do in 92' and 96'.

[paul718]

Lets face it Foxnews, and the far right will be labled as racist if McCain wins and will be on the wrong side of history.  Atleast thats the way black folks will see it.  They never forgave the gop for Al Gores loss and still to this day think that Bush stole the election.  Look at the early voting lines this year.

stop.  please.

Micheal steel is hurting himself by having anything to do with the McCain/ anti-Obama campaign.

....

The democrats years later if Steel attempted to run would hang every sound bite of him bashing Obama around his neck and it would dog his campaign.  Right now if iam a republican I stay far away from McCain's campaign if I plan to run later.   

I know Steele is a republican and it would seem that he wouldn't need black support, however don't kid yourself.  If its Warner vs Steele  you will see the reverse of what happened with Hillary supporters voting for McCain this year or atleast was going to.   Remember The south was once Democratic, and in many ways still is when the right type of democrat comes along.   Look at what Clinton was able to do in 92' and 96'.

Your logic only propogates the idea that black people are voting for Obama simply because he's black. 

And what makes you think Steele will ever run for President?  He couldn't even win a race for governor. 

[MR maverick]

Lets face it Foxnews, and the far right will be labled as racist if McCain wins and will be on the wrong side of history.  Atleast thats the way black folks will see it.  They never forgave the gop for Al Gores loss and still to this day think that Bush stole the election.  Look at the early voting lines this year.

stop.  please.

Micheal steel is hurting himself by having anything to do with the McCain/ anti-Obama campaign.

....

The democrats years later if Steel attempted to run would hang every sound bite of him bashing Obama around his neck and it would dog his campaign.  Right now if iam a republican I stay far away from McCain's campaign if I plan to run later.   

I know Steele is a republican and it would seem that he wouldn't need black support, however don't kid yourself.  If its Warner vs Steele  you will see the reverse of what happened with Hillary supporters voting for McCain this year or atleast was going to.   Remember The south was once Democratic, and in many ways still is when the right type of democrat comes along.   Look at what Clinton was able to do in 92' and 96'.

Your logic only propogates the idea that black people are voting for Obama simply because he's black. 

And what makes you think Steele will ever run for President?  He couldn't even win a race for governor. 

Sorry, but thats the way history will judge it if McCain wins. Honestly McCain has lost to the better man on the issues, 3 debates, and in campaigning.  Remove Obama and insert Warner right now and McCain stands no chance of winning.  I think as a country we are better with racial issues, but our elections bring out the bad guys.

No, blacks didn't start with Obama remember Hillary was winning this vote 60% to Obamas 30% at one time.  They moved to obama once they saw Iowa and to make matters worse Bill ran his mouth after that SC primary  ( I should know).

McCain and the Far right Gop have offended every other group in this country even the Latinos have gotton fed up with the BS from the right wing.  I mean you got people at McCain rallies talking about Arabs like they are some type of evil race  and to make it worse its on Natl TV.

The Rev Wright stuff and how the far right went bonkers also has alot to do with black support of Obama.

If Bush could get 45% of the latino vote and 12% of blacks why can't McCain?

McCain has ran one of the nastiest campaigns since the days of George Wallace and it's sad because McCains a good man.  He just let the slime balls like Rick Davis etc.. talk him into it.

[BM]

Mark Warner also isn't as liberal as Obama, nor is experience an issue.

I'm voting for Obama, but I know there are reasons other than race that would cause people to vote AGAINST him by voting for McCain.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Kevin, your Republican Party won't be waiting until 2020 to regain the keys to the White House back. 2012, depending on whether or not Obama's first term is successful or not, which I highly doubt will be successful, is the earliest election cycle where the Republicans can regain the White House. That's if they do not nominate the likes of Governor Jindal or Governor Palin. 2016, I find is the absolute latest.

[paul718]

Sorry, but thats the way history will judge it if McCain wins. Honestly McCain has lost to the better man on the issues, 3 debates, and in campaigning.  Remove Obama and insert Warner right now and McCain stands no chance of winning.  I think as a country we are better with racial issues, but our elections bring out the bad guys.

I agree with you, except that I think McCain won at least one of the debates, but that's neither here nor there.  And yes, Warner would've been a much stronger candidate. 

No, blacks didn't start with Obama remember Hillary was winning this vote 60% to Obamas 30% at one time.  They moved to obama once they saw Iowa and to make matters worse Bill ran his mouth after that SC primary  ( I should know).

Okay.  But you're the one talking about blacks not forgiving the GOP for Bush v. Gore, and that they'd never support Michael Steele because of his support for McCain.  It sounded to me like you were implying that blacks take it personal when someone campaigns against Obama.

McCain and the Far right Gop have offended every other group in this country even the Latinos have gotton fed up with the BS from the right wing.  I mean you got people at McCain rallies talking about Arabs like they are some type of evil race  and to make it worse its on Natl TV.

The Rev Wright stuff and how the far right went bonkers also has alot to do with black support of Obama.

If Bush could get 45% of the latino vote and 12% of blacks why can't McCain?

McCain has ran one of the nastiest campaigns since the days of George Wallace and it's sad because McCains a good man.  He just let the slime balls like Rick Davis etc.. talk him into it.

Who and what do you consider the "far-right GOP" and what groups have they offended?

As for the "Arab" comment at the rally, McCain immediately stopped her and spoke out against such language.  There are stupid and ignorant people on BOTH sides. 

Can you blame people for making a big deal about the Rev. Wright?  Besides, McCain swore NOT to go after the Rev. Wright and has kept his word.  How could the situation drive blacks to Obama?  I refuse to believe most black people subscribe to the garbage spewed by Wright.  When this election is over, I think a lot of people will fault McCain for NOT going after Rev. Wright.

I think Bush did better among Hispanics and blacks because he was able to pull the Christian vote.  Cubans tend to vote Republican (all though that is changing) and didn't Bush have a good reputation among Mexicans?  Plus, the entire electorate moved toward Obama, so those groups are moving along with it.  It also doesn't hurt that Obama is the first minority nominee from a major party.

I agree with you that this campaign season has been unexpectedly nasty, but it's been nasty on both sides. 

[MR maverick]

Sorry, but thats the way history will judge it if McCain wins. Honestly McCain has lost to the better man on the issues, 3 debates, and in campaigning.  Remove Obama and insert Warner right now and McCain stands no chance of winning.  I think as a country we are better with racial issues, but our elections bring out the bad guys.

I agree with you, except that I think McCain won at least one of the debates, but that's neither here nor there.  And yes, Warner would've been a much stronger candidate.   The folks say Obama won all 3 debates.   

No, blacks didn't start with Obama remember Hillary was winning this vote 60% to Obamas 30% at one time.  They moved to obama once they saw Iowa and to make matters worse Bill ran his mouth after that SC primary  ( I should know).

Okay.  But you're the one talking about blacks not forgiving the GOP for Bush v. Gore, and that they'd never support Michael Steele because of his support for McCain.  It sounded to me like you were implying that blacks take it personal when someone campaigns against Obama.

   They may forget it over time, however if lets say iam the Warner Campaign , I would make sure  remind  black voters of the nasty campain against the first black candidate.  Every clip of Steele allowing Hannity to smear Obama would be used = killing any chances of him winning that vote.  Iam just saying thats how the dems will play the game. In my OP a Obama loss will be a tool for democrats for years to come much like the 9/11 / UnAmerican stuff has been for the Gop.

McCain and the Far right Gop have offended every other group in this country even the Latinos have gotton fed up with the BS from the right wing.  I mean you got people at McCain rallies talking about Arabs like they are some type of evil race  and to make it worse its on Natl TV.

The Rev Wright stuff and how the far right went bonkers also has alot to do with black support of Obama.

If Bush could get 45% of the latino vote and 12% of blacks why can't McCain?

McCain has ran one of the nastiest campaigns since the days of George Wallace and it's sad because McCains a good man.  He just let the slime balls like Rick Davis etc.. talk him into it.

Who and what do you consider the "far-right GOP" and what groups have they offended?

As for the "Arab" comment at the rally, McCain immediately stopped her and spoke out against such language.  There are stupid and ignorant people on BOTH sides. 

Can you blame people for making a big deal about the Rev. Wright?  Besides, McCain swore NOT to go after the Rev. Wright and has kept his word.  How could the situation drive blacks to Obama?  I refuse to believe most black people subscribe to the garbage spewed by Wright.  When this election is over, I think a lot of people will fault McCain for NOT going after Rev. Wright.

I think Bush did better among Hispanics and blacks because he was able to pull the Christian vote.  Cubans tend to vote Republican (all though that is changing) and didn't Bush have a good reputation among Mexicans?  Plus, the entire electorate moved toward Obama, so those groups are moving along with it.  It also doesn't hurt that Obama is the first minority nominee from a major party.

I agree with you that this campaign season has been unexpectedly nasty, but it's been nasty on both sides. 

I consider the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck  and the rest of right wing radio = the far right bigoted loons who have drove other races away from the Republicans and attracted the angry white males ( Joe the plumber) .  There is no question they have had affect on driving the Latino vote away from the Gop.   I have lost all respect for John McCain and his George Wallace campaign rather he wins or lose.  To be honest he will win the election  because George Wallace type campaigns still work in this country and iam not surprised.

[paul718]

I consider the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck  and the rest of right wing radio = the far right bigoted loons who have drove other races away from the Republicans and attracted the angry white males ( Joe the plumber) .  There is no question they have had affect on driving the Latino vote away from the Gop.   I have lost all respect for John McCain and his George Wallace campaign rather he wins or lose.  To be honest he will win the election  because George Wallace type campaigns still work in this country and iam not surprised.

The Democrats have been engaging in race-based politics more than the Republicans.  You're line of comments in this thread is a good example of that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats held Congress for 40 years last time, and they have more seats right now than the Republican party has had since the 1920s.

[J. J.]

The Democrats held Congress for 40 years last time, and they have more seats right now than the Republican party has had since the 1920s.

You're only 60-70 years off.  The GOP had 167 seats in 1990, 18 years ago.  They had 302 in the 1920's at one point and bobbed between .

It's actually very likely that, even with a good performance by Obama, the GOP could gain in excess of 20 seats.  There have only been three cases when the party out of power didn't gain seats since WWII; two of those (1962 and 2002) were due to redistricting.

Two other factors.

1.   The opinion of Congress is in the toilet.  That may have been masked somewhat by the Obama victory, but it is still there.

2.  A sizable number of those districts were originally drawn to be Republican.  PA-4, PA-8, PA-7, and PA-3 are three examples.  The demographics can change, but not that much in 8 years in most districts.  Some can flip back.

2010-16 may be the key years.  I will 49 on the day of the 2012 election, and that might set political patterns for the remainder of my lifetime.  That is a scary thought.

[Mr.Phips]

The Democrats held Congress for 40 years last time, and they have more seats right now than the Republican party has had since the 1920s.

You're only 60-70 years off.  The GOP had 167 seats in 1990, 18 years ago.  They had 302 in the 1920's at one point and bobbed between .

It's actually very likely that, even with a good performance by Obama, the GOP could gain in excess of 20 seats.  There have only been three cases when the party out of power didn't gain seats since WWII; two of those (1962 and 2002) were due to redistricting.

Two other factors.

1.   The opinion of Congress is in the toilet.  That may have been masked somewhat by the Obama victory, but it is still there.

2.  A sizable number of those districts were originally drawn to be Republican.  PA-4, PA-8, PA-7, and PA-3 are three examples.  The demographics can change, but not that much in 8 years in most districts.  Some can flip back.

2010-16 may be the key years.  I will 49 on the day of the 2012 election, and that might set political patterns for the remainder of my lifetime.  That is a scary thought.

If Obama does good or even average, Republicans will likely gain a handful of seats in the House.  He would have to do horribly(Clinton in 1994 or Bush 2006) to lose more than 20 seats.  The problem for Republicans is that Democrats did not pick off a lot of deep red seats this time that would automatically go back to Republicans in 2010(CA-04, NE-02, IN-03, OH-02).  Most of the seats Democrats picked up are in districts Obama carried.  Those PA districts you mentioned are not going back to Republicans anytime soon.  Republicans way overreached in drawing them. 

[Silent Hunter]

Like Margaret Thatcher and the Tories, Republicans dominated Congress (though not always the White House) through the 1980s and 1990s

Huh?

Er, no...

[Person Man]

Well, it depends on whether people think whether Obama has gone too far or not far enough in 2010. Redistricting will favor democrats this time as more and more fast-growing red states are turning purple and blue.

[Four49]

I think redistricting will play a very big role.  Who it favors basically depends on which party controls things on each state level.  If the GOP concentrates the bulk of its efforts on Governerships and state level offices, particularly in the South and West, and they're successful, they might be able to gain some seats in 2012 just by having favorable demographics.  Then if, big IF, Obama's a failure, they could grab control by 2016.  I wouldn't bet on it, but it is feasible.

[Person Man]

I think the D's grass roots are too strong for that. Operation Rat Fu ck II seems to be the only option at this point.

[pbrower2a]

The Democrats held Congress for 40 years last time, and they have more seats right now than the Republican party has had since the 1920s.

You're only 60-70 years off.  The GOP had 167 seats in 1990, 18 years ago.  They had 302 in the 1920's at one point and bobbed between .

It's actually very likely that, even with a good performance by Obama, the GOP could gain in excess of 20 seats.  There have only been three cases when the party out of power didn't gain seats since WWII; two of those (1962 and 2002) were due to redistricting.

Two other factors.

1.   The opinion of Congress is in the toilet.  That may have been masked somewhat by the Obama victory, but it is still there.

2.  A sizable number of those districts were originally drawn to be Republican.  PA-4, PA-8, PA-7, and PA-3 are three examples.  The demographics can change, but not that much in 8 years in most districts.  Some can flip back.

2010-16 may be the key years.  I will 49 on the day of the 2012 election, and that might set political patterns for the remainder of my lifetime.  That is a scary thought.

Rebounds are the norm. First-term Representatives are the most vulnerable of incumbents, often having won marginal districts under unusual circumstances. Sometimes they are too far from the political norm in their district; sometimes they just aren't up to the job; sometimes they defeated a scandal-plagued predecessor and face someone with no such problem in the following election. Sometimes the new Representative is a family member of the predecessor -- and that, however traditional it may be, might bring someone who lacks something in office.   Political fads come and go.  Landslides might bring in new Representatives dragging on the coat-tails of a big winner, only for those coattails to drift onto quicksand.