Phil's Predictions for the 4th - Presidential race

[12th Doctor]

As for Chris, I think he has something important to say on the future direction of the GOP regardless of how this election turns out. I think you guys will need to reassess yourselves in the way we did after '97.

"After us the deluge realignment."

That is part of what is coming.

There won'tbe a re-alignment in the country unless there is a re-alignment within the GOP and you decide who you want to carry with you.

It's not about carrying people with you.  I'm fine with inclusion.  I think just about everyone should be welcome.  Its when we start kowtowing to the interests of the religious right so much that the rest of the country finds us utterly reprehensible that we get into trouble.

The Republican party used to pride itself on the fact that we wouldn't tell you how to raise your family, who you can be friends with, what to do with your business, or what you do in your home/bedroom.  We used to be the party of intellectualism.  We used believe in fiscal responsibility.  We used to support principled, but sensible foreign policy.

Does that sound anything like the current direction of the party?

[anti_leftist]

Supersoulty brings up some excellent points. The Republican party needs to stop bending over backwards for the moral fascists and get back to its limited-government roots. 2004 was an anomaly in that 9/11 gave Bush the ability to appeal to nationalism and drive out the base in huge numbers, but there will probably be no future Presidential Election ever where fear-mongering about terrorists while energizing the conservative base and basically alienating everyone else will be a winning strategy. This party needs to moderate itself, leave the fundamentalist nutjobs on the fringes and start emphasizing pragmatic solutions over blind ideology.



I have a strong hunch that the current Republican loyalists like Phil are going to take the wrong message in the short-to-mid term from this pending Obama landslide. Instead of seeing it as a chance to moderate the party and smooth over its extremist edges, they'll think that their problem was McCain wasn't conservative enough and therefore didn't do enough to motivate the base. Under this reasoning, they would nominate someone like Huckabee or Romney (the ultraconservative ideologue from the primaries, not the relatively moderate and rational Governor) and get utterly destroyed by Obama in 2012 (assuming nothing happens to him in his first term, which I have some fears about). Maybe by 2016 they'll get the message and carry out some much needed modernizing of the party's core ideals. The Conservatives in Canada and England (who are finally about to regain power) needed long times in the wilderness to reform themselves and become electable once again. I'd bet the Republicans will need to go through a very similar process before they can regain the White House (the period is just 20-30 years later than those examples). It may even take them until 2020 or 2024 (2016 is possible but I can't see 2012 happening....old tendencies die hard).

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty brings up some excellent points. The Republican party needs to stop bending over backwards for the moral fascists and get back to its small-government roots. 2004 was an anomaly in that 9/11 gave Bush the ability to appeal to nationalism and drive out the base in huge numbers, but there will probably be no future Presidential Election ever where fear-mongering about terrorists while energizing the conservative base and basically alienating everyone else will be a winning strategy. This party needs to moderate itself, leave the fundamentalist nutjobs on the fringes and start emphasizing pragmatic solutions over blind ideology.



I have a strong hunch that the current Republican loyalists like Phil are going to take the wrong message in the short-to-mid term from this pending Obama landslide. Instead of seeing it as a chance to moderate the party and smooth over its extremist edges, they'll think that their problem was McCain wasn't conservative enough and therefore didn't do enough to motivate the base. Under this reasoning, they would nominate someone like Huckabee or Romney (the ultraconservative ideologue from the primaries, not the relatively moderate and rational Governor) and get utterly destroyed by Obama in 2012 (assuming nothing happens to him in his first term, which I have some fears about). Maybe by 2016 they'll get the message and carry out some much needed modernizing of the party's core ideals. The Conservatives in Canada and England (who are finally about to regain power) needed long times in the wilderness to reform themselves and become electable once again. I'd bet the Republicans will need to go through a very similar process before they can regain the White House (the period is just 20-30 years later than with those examples). It may even take them until 2020 or 2024 (2016 is possible but I can't see 2012 happening....old tendencies die hard).

Moderating the party is going to be very hard in the short term, because the moderates are the most likely to be wiped-out in this election.  Usually, in paradigm changing elections, the successful party wins by winning in the most moderate seats.

And as you say, many people will take this as a sign that we just didn't "energize the base" enough... Hell, they are already saying that.  2012 will likely be the bloodiest Republican primary in years.

[Keystone Phil]

Frankly, I was going to let this post get personal, but I'll just end it here and prove, once again, that I am the bigger man, Phil.  Whatever the  your problem is, if you don't get over it soon then the chances that we are ever gonna meet again in this life will be slim to nil.

You were going to make it personal? You weren't already? LOL

And this is the best part - Saying it isn't personal and then doing the "I'm better than you!" routine. Spare me the lectures, pal.

I really like you, Super. You're a good guy. However, I think you turn to whining far too often when the chips are down and you take it too personally. I don't like everything this party does. I've been a vocal critic of our "leaders" plenty of times. This isn't about them though; you made this about me, saying I had "lost it" because I think it will be close. Saying that we're going to lose PA (which I have argued from the beginning would be a favorable McCain state) and lose nationally just wasn't enough for you.

Phil,

Do you think EVERY single poll is wrong and wrong in favor of Obama?

...

I have no idea what this means...since I have Obama winning both PA and nationally. This is the perfect example of pure hack posting. You didn't even read the prediction!

[12th Doctor]

Frankly, I was going to let this post get personal, but I'll just end it here and prove, once again, that I am the bigger man, Phil.  Whatever the  your problem is, if you don't get over it soon then the chances that we are ever gonna meet again in this life will be slim to nil.

You were going to make it personal? You weren't already? LOL

And this is the best part - Saying it isn't personal and then doing the "I'm better than you!" routine. Spare me the lectures, pal.

I really like you, Super. You're a good guy. However, I think you turn to whining far too often when the chips are down and you take it too personally. I don't like everything this party does. I've been a vocal critic of our "leaders" plenty of times. This isn't about them though; you made this about me, saying I had "lost it" because I think it will be close. Saying that we're going to lose PA (which I have argued from the beginning would be a favorable McCain state) and lose nationally just wasn't enough for you.

Phil,

Do you think EVERY single poll is wrong and wrong in favor of Obama?

...

I have no idea what this means...since I have Obama winning both PA and nationally. This is the perfect example of pure hack posting. You didn't even read the prediction!

My initial "attack" against you was a professional criticism, Phil, not a personal one.  It's a good idea to recognize the difference.  And I am sorry if I am too "whinny" for you, but frankly, I am tired of people who make a habit of making their objections known after the fact.