Talk Elections

despite claims of being a 'mjaority' party, the republicans havent won the national popular vote since 1988--16 years!!

what happens if bush loses the popular vote and the election tomorrow?  will the republican party descend into chaos with leadership struggles?

no.

Guiliani will be immediately designated the party's face, and then he would humiliate Kerry in '08.

Hell, the GOP could benefit from a Bush loss.

I think the republican party is getting more and more Christian right. Chafee, Snowe, Collins, McCain and the like don't like where the party is going.

I don't think the party will descend into chaos, but I think there may be a few party switches coming up if the party continues towards this extreme social conservatism.

Not could, would.

I would hope that it would move to the center...

Winner winner chicken dinner

First,  the Democratic party has not won a majority since 1976.

Second, there is the a greater problem with the lefties in the Democratic party.  There was the Al Gore of 1988, who was substantially to the right of the Al Gore of 2000.  There were moderate Democrats like Joe Lieberman (2004) that didn't do nearly as well as John McCain (200).  The GOP has done a better job of keeping the extreme right, Bauer, Buchannan, and Gram, from getting the nomination that the Democrats have of getting the extreme left from playing a major role, e.g. John Kerry.

i fear that the republican party, with its radical elements, is becoming more like the democratic party of old....in other words, unable to win a national election, but is able to stay alive due to its strength in certain parts of the country, which results in congressional majorities.

How can the GOP be more radical than a party that has Chaka Fattah and Jerry Nadler & co. in the House?

John Kerry: Democrats :: George W. Bush: Republicans. They both are partisans who like to build a moderate image but will take the party line on most issues. Bauer, Buchanan and Gramm are most comparable to Kucinich, Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson (who I admire). Kerry was the establishment favorite going into the nomination as was Bush in 2000. They aren't wildly different on this.

I only hope that folks like those four gain and drive the party back to its origin and its roots (which is not the religious right).  My signature is indicative of my support for that line of thinking.  Until three years ago I was a lifelong Republican.  I've given up.  I am a "big tent Republican"; that is all talk in the party now, there is no genuine "big tent".  "Big tent" doesn't mean lots of entitlement programs (which I'm against), but it does mean tolerance... not just begrudgingly tolerant, but openly and abundantly tolerant.  Moreover, the party is no longer fiscally conservative.  So, they've lost one of their great advantages over the Dems.  Sorry to go on ad nauseam, but this is a sore spot for me.  I'm a lifelong Republican repulsed by the direction of my party for 20-30 years now, and it came to a head in 2000.  I seriously pray for the "moderates" (the true, old fashioned Republicans) to take back the party.  The polarization of both parties is responsible for the divisive nature of our society.  It is pitiful and sad.  United we stand, divided we fall.

just to play devil's advocate....id say that chaka fatah and that crowd have less of an influence on the democratic party than gary bauer and his fundies have on the republican party.

Amen, Clinton could never had been elected in 1992 without Perot

Well said

incorrect.

If Republicans were playing to win comfortably in 2000, they might have stuck behind McCain.  What happened in the SC 2000 primary was the ugly side of the right wing coming out.  The same one that may very well prevent a Guliani run in 2008.  Going into 2000, did anyone really think GWB was going to beat McCain? GWB was the underdog.

In a way I hope we run McCain on 2008. Because I want to see what Democrats say and do when they find out he's actually a conservative.

It's not what is said as much as how it's said, I guess, like the old saying goes.

I did.

Does anyone remember what kind of campaign McCain ran in 2000? It was horrible, literally off the scale bad. He's got a basically conservative record, goes up to New England and talks like a liberal, scares the hell out of everybody, but wins NH and DE or something, and then he's dead in the water. He promises not to negative campaign and then does. Bush pounces on him like a cat crouched in the weeds. McCain doesn't have the intuition or temperment to run a national campaign, but if he runs I hope he learned some lessons from 2000.

Fortunately for McCain, he's remembered as being a lot, a ton better than he came off in 2000, so he probably could mount a run, but he would have to be very careful.

   The old GOP was not the Rockefeller wing of the GOP. While this wing did gain the upper hand in terms of influence in the 30s and even held sway in many states up till the 80s, this is not represenative of the GOPs roots.

   While many will be repulsed by this, I think the future of the GOP will be Sen Taft(who was senator from Ohio from the 30s untill his death in the eraly 50s) Conservatism, and that means fiscally conservative, and having a more nationalistic rather than Capitalist bent, and even being a tad isolationist. A more recent version of this style of politics was George Wallace and even to an extent, Perot.

   On Social issues, I expect the GOP to remain conservative, but at the time, while more Christian Conservatives(especially church going Catholics) will continue to identify with the GOP, the element known as the Christian right, dominated by evangelicals, will be on the fade.

We know hes a conservative. Its the fact that he's a moderate conservative, not a Santorum type, that the appeal is.

I do not agree.  If Perot had never run, perhaps.  Once he ran, and withdrew, that opened up the door for Clinton.  It changed the dynamics.

Had there never been a Perot candidacy, there might not have been a Clinton.

Since the 1952 election, however, only twice have Democrats every had a majority, more than half of the popular vote, at that was 16 years appart (1964, 1976); only once did the Democratic candidate for president win by 5% or more (1964).

Not getting a majority is not a problem.

Gee, I must have been dreaming when I read the 1860 Republican Platform which explicitly named slavery as "immoral".   And I must have been dreaming when I read the writings of the Confederates when they left the Union because a party calling the South "immoral" had won the election.

What a weird dream.  Thanks for setting me straight on that!

I will agree that he's not a Santorum style conservative. But the fact is that I think regardless, McCain is perceived as being a lot better now than he came off in 2000 and he can easily work that to his advantage. I think that's actually kind of rare that someone can put those kinds of mistakes behind them, but he does face an uphill battle (especially if Bush is re-elected) because he's not a partyline conservative. Would be interesting if the Dems put up a non-partyline candidate and the GOP put up a non-partyline candidate.

For the record, I will support him unless he proves utterly incapable of running a national campaign.

As much as I disagree (but respect) my adopted home state's senior senator, he may be the perfect GOP candidate in 2008.  Because he's pro-life but percieved as a moderate by the general population.  Shoot, my parents even like him and we don't see eye to eye too much on politics.

Glad I could help (I say with a snicker, because that's not at all what I'm talking about).  For one thing, there's a difference between being "moral" and the religious right.  Nice way to parse my post as well.  I emphasized tolerance, which was the main reason for opposing the immorality of slavery.  Take a look at some of the speeches and quotes of the Republican founding father.  They were strongly opposed to injecting religion into politics.  In fact, Lincoln made some rather derrogatory remarks about religion in his time.  He would be excommunicated from the Republican Party these days.  The platform on slavery simply proves my point that the Republican Party was the party of tolerance and social moderates.  Consider that segregationist Strom Thurmond was a Democrat for much of his early time.

I disagree, McCain ran as the "outsider".  Bush was favored by most in the party and was also much better funded.

Not that I was following it all that closely, but I thought Bush had the nomination locked when Liz Dole pulled out...I'd never heard of this McCain guy, and didn't think he had a snowball's chance in hell.  I was quite surprised he did as well as he did, and actually cheered for him a bit...until he lost the SC primary methinks.

Personally I'd like to see two moderates from either side go againsts each other, eg Bayh v McCain

Yeah, right!  Next you're going to tell us that "moral" was not spoken of by the founders of the GOP in the context of Christian morality.

Only to the extent that Kerry would be so bad for the country.

But, honestly, I think a Bush win will be very good for the party and for the country.  If Bush is able to accomplish even some small pieces of his legislative agenda in the next four years, he could revolutionize politics in this country.  Social Security reform and/or tax reform would change the debate in this country.  It would be a significant blow to big government liberalism and the idea that the government can and should be the one to "take care" of the citizens.  It could create a whole new generation of conservatives voters.  Youth voters would adore the republican party for finally fixing the system that was bound to be an albatross around our necks.  Low-income citizens would have some kind of investable account in their name that they could use to build wealth.  Minorities who have in the past lacked the same economic opportunities as whites would have great opportunity to invest and build a nest egg.  Workers could retire at a time of their choosing.  And if social security reform were accompanied with at least some basic tax reform, this country could experience the biggest investment boom in our history.  All of this would probably translate into growing republican majorities.

"Big tent" Republicanism does still turn up. I was at a major fundraiser in my staunch GOP county and the guest speaker was Christy Whitman. Her speech included talk about fiscal conservatism. She mostly talked about the "big tent" but preferred to use the metaphor of a "big umbrella" instead. The umbrella had no door to keep people out.

Nominate Ron Paul for President? That would be a good start!

Ther two parties are controlled by big money and special interests, but every four years, the two parties trot out various candidates, and these candidates are chosen by political party members from the US, and in some states, open primaries.

The Republicans will purge (or at very least shout down) the neo-cons and adapt a more centerist position, like John McCain, Bill Weld, Guiliani, Whitman and others. To quote Nixon, there is a "silent majority" of Republicans that dislike Bush, his administration and his worldviews. But they cannot dissent in public, because this will split the party, making Kerry's victory either. Besides, all these people owe favors to one another and will not stab each other in the back if there a possibility of a future gain (I don't understand why McCain did than nominating speech for him, Mac wants or owes something to the White House).

Send W, Cheney, Rumsfeld down the same river that Nixon travelled. This will happen, especially if Kerry wins. If Kerry wins, the moderates will take control. Unfortunately, McCain is too old, and he is good friends with John Kerry (which is an excellent thing).

I would also like to see the libertarian wing of the Republican Party get stronger. LPs should join the Republicans and change it from the inside, and making Ron Paul their guide. The Lib. wing can keep reminding the majority that we are a party of limited government and personal responsibility.

The same question was asked after the 1964 elections. Goldwater conservatism was seen as reactionary and scary, and the hard right loss the race and were sent to the aisles in favor of moderates, and because of this, won the next 5 out of 6 elections, although they were a minority party in Congress. The Democrats lost because 5 out of 6 because they kept nominating neo-liberals who were too leftist, especially 1972, 1984, and 1988. BUT, they won in 1976, 1992, and 1996, because they ran moderates.

So, I believe that the Republican Party will realign itself to the Center, especially if Kerry wins tomorrow.

Senor

Blechh!  Heck no!  Remember four years ago?  All of these stupid undecided voters complaining that the two candidates were too similar.  Bayh and McCain have their differences, for sure, but most of the public is not astute enough to pick up on them.  I think it's better for the parties to maintain an ideological distance from each other during elections.  They can turn to compromises and moderation when they're in power.

   The Republican Party is in for a split, and vicious infighting whether Bush loses or wins.

    The deficit just does not sit well with many Republicans.

   Longer term, I believe the Republican Party today is where the Whig Party was in the late 1840s.   It can't hold up its promises for banking and the markets, as the Whig Party couldn't, and it has chosen to rely on foreign invasions and the hope that spoils from wars will  sustain its popularity.   Bush is a parallel to Zachary Taylor.  The Republican Party today will let our entrenched domestic problems drive it into oblivion.

Uh, that's 3 elections.

The Republican Party will endure if Bush loses.  It's just a question of how they will deal with it and set themselves up for 2008.  Will Guliani and Pataki lead the party towards the center, or will Republicans decide that Bush wasn't conservative enough?  I think the former's more likely, but then again I'm not really someone who can predict what Republicans do.

The Republican party must make a full-fledged effort to more of the Hispanic vote.
If they do not they will get killed demographically in the future.  George P. Bush anyone.  LOL

Yes, but it would also help to stop giving illegal immigrants amnesty after amnesty.

Giuliani/Snowe 2008?

That's a good republican ticket, one that the world will comprehend. Born again christians don't float outside the US-rightly or wrongly-in western countries.

Wow this was pretty damn accurate.