(POL) Arlen Specter switching parties

[cartman]

Just saw a news flash on this. Should make for some interesting conversation.

[molson]

It looks like this is his only chance of getting through the primaries next year. I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often.

[flere-imsaho]

I can't say I'm surprised. The current GOP doesn't really have a lot of room for many of his views. Plus, as molson said, he'd likely face a strong primary challenge.

[DaddyTorgo]

damn - you beat me to it!

i think it's like flere said - he doesn't want to be associated with the "current GOP" (trying to be polite)

[albionmoonlight]

It will be interesting to see how far to the left he tacks. I wonder if he is actually more to the left than his voting record demonstrates and he has been voting more in line with the GOP b/c of his affiliation. Or, will nothing change in his behavior except for the letter by his name?

[Ksyrup]

He is only doing this as a pretext to get the new administration on his side to keep the pressure on Goodell over the Belichick cheating thing.

[stevew]

Career politicians are a rare breed. It was pretty much a forgone conclusion he was going to lose the primary. Unfortunately it was going to be because of some big "right to life" push. Instead of what should be the real reason, him being in washington way too long.

[JPhillips]

Employee Free Choice will be his first big test. He's supported it in the past, but came out strongly against it a few weeks ago, presumably to shore up right wing support. Once Toomey declared he was in it was a foregone conclusion that Specter wasn't going to be a Republican Senator past 2010.

[Ksyrup]

Employee Free Choice will be his first big test. He's supported it in the past, but came out strongly against it a few weeks ago, presumably to shore up right wing support. Once Toomey declared he was in it was a foregone conclusion that Specter wasn't going to be a Republican Senator past 2010.

In his released statement, he said he won't be voting party line now any more than he did before, and specifically mentioned still being against this.

[Big Fo]

Good spin: goes to show that moderates have no place in the modern GOP

Bad spin: another non-liberal with a D next to his name

Any chance he could lose the Democrats' primary?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Gee, what a shock. I can't believe Spector actually did something honest, in this case something quite overdue. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[albionmoonlight]

In his released statement, he said he won't be voting party line now any more than he did before, and specifically mentioned still being against this.

Though voting against it and joining a fillibuster against it are two different things.

[DaddyTorgo]

Gee, what a shock. I can't believe Spector actually did something honest, in this case something quite overdue. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Ironically he'd probably say the same thing about not being a member of the Republican Party anymore :D

[ISiddiqui]

Politics is a cynical game, but this move is very cynical. If his poll numbers were up on Toomey, he'd never have switched.

I do wonder how quickly he's going to be labeled a DINO (Dem In Name Only)... oh wait, I think I've already seen some.

[lungs]

That gives the Dems a filibuster proof majority assuming Franken gets in...

[ISiddiqui]

That gives the Dems a filibuster proof majority assuming Franken gets in...

Well... according to Specter's statement:

Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

[albionmoonlight]

In some ways, the GOP has to be happy. Specter was probably going to lose the primary in 2010 to that right wing guy running against him. Then that guy was going to lose in the general to whoever the Dems put up. So, by Specter switching, the GOP can be happy that he will have the seat as a moderate Dem instead of the more left wing dem who would have taken over in 2010.

[flere-imsaho]

In some ways, the GOP has to be happy. Specter was probably going to lose the primary in 2010 to that right wing guy running against him. Then that guy was going to lose in the general to whoever the Dems put up. So, by Specter switching, the GOP can be happy that he will have the seat as a moderate Dem instead of the more left wing dem who would have taken over in 2010.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to the two people left in today's GOP who are actually moderate.

I KEED! I KEED! :D

[Abe Sargent]

Yeah, GOP is not a party for me anymore. If I were still working in poltics, I'd have jumped to Dems several years ago. I'm a conservative fiscally amd moderate middle of the road, but the GOP abandoned fiscal conservatism during the Bush yeras. That party that was about balanced budget amendments and term limits for congress and the line item veto for an enemy party President because it is the right thing to do is now about even handouts and overly spending and such.

Why would I want to be in that party anymore? Sure, I'm pro-life and anti gun control, but I'm also pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization of marijuana, pro-legalization of prostitution, pro-human rights, and anti-war. There's not much there in the modern GOP, but there was when the libertarian wing was strongly represented in Congress and the leaders were very fiscally sound with solid common sense legislation.

I think I truly left the GOP in spirit when the GOP was considering the nuke option in the Senate to bust filibusters of judicial candidates. That just seemed wrong. The spending had been irritating me for forever, and the rights abuse was bad, but that was bullying of the highest order.

[ISiddiqui]

In some ways, the GOP has to be happy. Specter was probably going to lose the primary in 2010 to that right wing guy running against him. Then that guy was going to lose in the general to whoever the Dems put up. So, by Specter switching, the GOP can be happy that he will have the seat as a moderate Dem instead of the more left wing dem who would have taken over in 2010.

And Specter seems to be someone who will vigorously protect his independence in the Senate. So, its much better than it could have been... still worrying.

This just increases the time in the wilderness (was hoping the moderates would put up more of a fight in the best time they can do so).

[JPhillips]

It's amazing to me how many Republicans are happy that the party is shrinking. A lot of the response I've read mirrors Jon's "good riddance" stance.

[flere-imsaho]

On the other hand, an argument could be made that this was mostly electorally-based (as opposed to moderates abandoning the GOP) on the basis that neither Snowe or Collins seem close to dropping out of the GOP (given that neither have experienced significant electoral challenges recently, nor will they probably).

[ISiddiqui]

On the other hand, an argument could be made that this was mostly electorally-based (as opposed to moderates abandoning the GOP) on the basis that neither Snowe or Collins seem close to dropping out of the GOP (given that neither have experienced significant electoral challenges recently, nor will they probably).

I think the other MAJOR thing is that you can't "pull a Libermann" in PA. In that if you lose the primary, you can't run as an independent.

[albionmoonlight]

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Specter's Switch More Insult Than Injury to GOP (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/specters-switch-more-insult-than-injury.html)

[Tasan]

Yeah, GOP is not a party for me anymore. If I were still working in poltics, I'd have jumped to Dems several years ago. I'm a conservative fiscally amd moderate middle of the road, but the GOP abandoned fiscal conservatism during the Bush yeras. That party that was about balanced budget amendments and term limits for congress and the line item veto for an enemy party President because it is the right thing to do is now about even handouts and overly spending and such.

Why would I want to be in that party anymore? Sure, I'm pro-life and anti gun control, but I'm also pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization of marijuana, pro-legalization of prostitution, pro-human rights, and anti-war. There's not much there in the modern GOP, but there was when the libertarian wing was strongly represented in Congress and the leaders were very fiscally sound with solid common sense legislation.

I think I truly left the GOP in spirit when the GOP was considering the nuke option in the Senate to bust filibusters of judicial candidates. That just seemed wrong. The spending had been irritating me for forever, and the rights abuse was bad, but that was bullying of the highest order.

I'm not trying to flame or anything, just understand. I completely get you leaving the GOP, they don't fit you at all from what you have said. However, I don't understand going DEM. You say you are pro-life, anti-gun control and fiscally conservative. None of those are DEM standards, either. Have you gone Libertarian? That seems the best fit for you, outside of the pro-life stance.

[-apoc-]

The one thing I dont get is why he wont switch on the EFCA. If he would support that he would have labor support and probably wouldnt get primaried from the left and could join the Blue Dogs caucus. As it stands he is taking the worst of it from both sides.

[path12]

The one thing I dont get is why he wont switch on the EFCA. If he would support that he would have labor support and probably wouldnt get primaried from the left and could join the Blue Dogs caucus. As it stands he is taking the worst of it from both sides.

He'll flip on it. As I understand it you're not going to get away with an unchallenged Dem primary in PA if you piss on the union.

[RainMaker]

He'll flip on it. As I understand it you're not going to get away with an unchallenged Dem primary in PA if you piss on the union.
My guess is there was some deal made between him and the Democratic Party. He'll side with them on a few key issues and not be contested in the primary. Toomey will win the Republican Party nomination but get slaughtered in the general like Santorum did.

One question to those more politically involved. Why is EFCA such a hot button issue? I can understand union workers and heads of companies being interested, but the amount of mainstream attention it has garnered is rather odd. I've seen it on political blogs everywhere. As someone who doesn't work for a union and doesn't own a company that has union labor, I literally couldn't care less about this issue.

[Abe Sargent]

I'm not trying to flame or anything, just understand. I completely get you leaving the GOP, they don't fit you at all from what you have said. However, I don't understand going DEM. You say you are pro-life, anti-gun control and fiscally conservative. None of those are DEM standards, either. Have you gone Libertarian? That seems the best fit for you, outside of the pro-life stance.

Look, marijuana is never getting legalized, so I don;t need to be in a party with it as a major plank, you know what I'm saying? On the other hand, gay marriage is coming someday, and I'd rather it be sooner. That you can do from Democrats a ot more than Repubs.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm not trying to flame or anything, just understand. I completely get you leaving the GOP, they don't fit you at all from what you have said. However, I don't understand going DEM. You say you are pro-life, anti-gun control and fiscally conservative. None of those are DEM standards, either. Have you gone Libertarian? That seems the best fit for you, outside of the pro-life stance.

Problem is of course the Libertarians really don't have much of a say in national politics. I consider myself more of a Swarteneggerian "moderate libertarian" (or I guess Will Wilkerson would called it a "Liberaltarian"), but that's kind of an entirely different type of moderate than the standard and one has to decide on major party support sometime.

[Abe Sargent]

I look at it this way, my vote is a voice to the party on various issues in the primaries. I can;t influence most of my views in the republican primary, they are almost all pro-life anyway, and gun control is then the one thing I can influence with my vote.

However, may of my views can be used in the democratic primary to influnce the debate on vaious topics.

[gstelmack]

I'm cynical on this because he switched parties instead of declaring himself Independent.

[SackAttack]

I'm cynical on this because he switched parties instead of declaring himself Independent.

If it were a purely apolitical move, Independent would probably make the most sense. If he intends to run for re-election, though, doing so as a member of a party major enough that the party apparatus can assist with the re-election campaign means that (D-PA) was the only realistic choice.

It's not like the Libertarians or American Independents or whomever would have significant enough resources to devote to a three-way fight between Specter and the Republican/Democratic nominees.

[RainMaker]

He just guaranteed himself another term if the Dems don't contest him in the primary. It was a political move based on survival, nothing more.

[gstelmack]

Yup, hence the cynicism. His goal is reelection, not doing what's best for the country...

[flere-imsaho]

Well, presumably in his mind him being re-elected is what's best for the country. Surely that's not cynical. Myopic, maybe, but not cynical. :D

[albionmoonlight]

It goes without saying that, for Specter, this was all about his personal survival on the Hill. So, it is really more interesting for the effect that it will have and for what, if anything, we can glean from it.

The early buzz seems to be that it won't change much of anything, other than making that seat more moderate than it would be in 2010. In terms of what we can read from it--I guess it seems like at least one GOP moderate decided that it was easier to become a Democrat than to wait for the GOP to become moderate again. So, as a guy who wants a moderate GOP to provide a reasonable alternative to the dems, I'm kind of bummed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, presumably in his mind him being re-elected is what's best for the country. Surely that's not cynical. Myopic, maybe, but not cynical. :D

I think you've got a pretty good pearl of wisdom there actually. Maybe not a massive saltwater pearl of great opulence but at least a decent freshwater pearl of some value.

Even I don't think there's too many people running for office with a mind set of "Yeah, I really suck but I want to do this on a whim". Maybe a decent amount of "well I'm not going to be any worse than the others, so why not" but **not out & out candidacy knowing that they'll suck hard for every single constituency.

**Not valid in Illinois

[flere-imsaho]

Ah Illinois, where every election is a selection of the "least worst".

(Obama-Keyes excepted) :D

[RainMaker]

Obama to campaign for him in the primary.

Specter says Obama promised to campaign for him (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97RKV800&show_article=1)

I guess it's a good move for the Dems. They probably get some concessions from Specter in becoming a Dem and supporting him and ensure that the seat doesn't go Red in 2010. Others I guess could argue that a Democrat was going to win that seat anyway so why cut a deal with Specter.

[flere-imsaho]

This post (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/specter-will-run-as-a-democrat-in-2010/?hp) from the NYT politics blog is all kinds of interesting. Selected bits below:


“Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to
become Democrats,” Mr. Specter said in a statement released in the early afternoon. “I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”

He said he has experienced a change of heart since the response to his vote for the stimulus legislation.

“Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion,” his statement said. “It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.”

So, that's the "ideals" claim. I suppose one could take him at his word.

Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, did not mince words about the senator, saying Mr. Specter “didn’t leave the G.O.P. based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Senator Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.”

But Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, who also supported the Obama administration’s economic stimulus legislation, said Mr. Specter’s decision reflected the increasingly inhospitable climate in the Republican party for moderates.

“On the national level of the Republican Party, we haven’t certainly heard warm, encouraging words about how they view moderates, either you are with us or against us,” Ms. Snowe said. She said national Republican leaders were not grasping that “political diversity makes a party stronger and ultimately we are heading to having the smallest political tent in history for any political party the way things are unfolding.”

Pretty jarring juxtaposition there. Go back 20 years and GOP Senators like Specter and Snowe were the norm, not the exception.

[JPhillips]

Obama to campaign for him in the primary.

Specter says Obama promised to campaign for him (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97RKV800&show_article=1)

I guess it's a good move for the Dems. They probably get some concessions from Specter in becoming a Dem and supporting him and ensure that the seat doesn't go Red in 2010. Others I guess could argue that a Democrat was going to win that seat anyway so why cut a deal with Specter.

I don't think Specter by himself is much of a gain for the Dems especially considering that they would have won PA in 2010 regardless. Where I think this is important is in framing the narrative that the Republicans are intolerant of moderates. As long as the story is about a forty year Republican disenchanted with the extremism of the party that has to be good for the Dems.

btw- Did anyone else see the poll where only 21% self-identified as Republicans?

[Subby]

Well at least Michael Steele wasn't an asshole about it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

btw- Did anyone else see the poll where only 21% self-identified as Republicans?

Probably bears noting here that I typically self-identify as an Independent. Just something to keep in mind.

[Galaxy]

The GOP needs to wake up and realize that it's time to soften it's stance on social issues and actually get back to it's small government, financially conservative roots. If they don't, they'll be down until they do.

[RainMaker]

I don't think Specter by himself is much of a gain for the Dems especially considering that they would have won PA in 2010 regardless. Where I think this is important is in framing the narrative that the Republicans are intolerant of moderates. As long as the story is about a forty year Republican disenchanted with the extremism of the party that has to be good for the Dems.

btw- Did anyone else see the poll where only 21% self-identified as Republicans?

Perhaps, but I still think it's a risk for Democrats in 2010.

Put it this way, a generic Democrat would absolutely slaughter Toomey. Specter on the other hand has some negatives such as his time in the Senate and the fact he's that old school style of politics. If Obama and the Democrats want to push that narrative that it's time for change, supporting a guy like Specter doesn't make a ton of sense.

Basically what I'm saying is that a generic Dem was almost an automatic to win in that Senate seat. Specter on the other hand seems to have some risk. He will surely bring in a lot more fundraising for Toomey. I still think Specter wins in a landslide in a general election due to Democrats voting for anyone but the far right conservative and moderates leaning toward Specter. Plus there are always those old school voters who will vote for the incumbent (the Ted Stevens effect).

[RainMaker]

The GOP needs to wake up and realize that it's time to soften it's stance on social issues and actually get back to it's small government, financially conservative roots. If they don't, they'll be down until they do.

I honestly would hate to be in Michael Steele's position. You can cater to your socially conservative elements that are loyal to the party and continue to get slaughtered in elections. Or you can try and expand the party which in turn pisses off those socially conservative people who will want your head.

They went all in on the socially conservative crowds over the years and are now in a corner where the country's demographics have changed and the only way to get out of it is to open things up.

[sterlingice]

I kindof miss the illusion of the Senate as the "Good Ol' Boys" club where they worked with each other somewhat since they had some reasonable electoral security to balance out the crazy House.

SI

[Abe Sargent]

The GOP needs to wake up and realize that it's time to soften it's stance on social issues and actually get back to it's small government, financially conservative roots. If they don't, they'll be down until they do.

McCain's loss is the wrost thing for this. They have deluded themselves into thinking it was because he wasn;t conservative instead of the real reasons - i.e. everything was against him - bad curren t president, hard for you to win third term in office, unpopular war, negative economics, etc.

[kcchief19]

It goes without saying that, for Specter, this was all about his personal survival on the Hill. So, it is really more interesting for the effect that it will have and for what, if anything, we can glean from it.
I largely agree. This is a political survival decision, not a philosophical decision. However, what we can glean from it is that even in a largely
"purple" state such as Pennsylvania, the GOP power base has shifted so far right that a moderate Republican faces an uphill challenge. Yet at the same time, the entire state is shifting further left, evidence by the real reason for Specter's bolt -- the number of moderate Republican voters who switched their affiliation to Democrat last year. As the state is shifting slightly left, the GOP is moving further right.
In terms of what we can read from it--I guess it seems like at least one GOP moderate decided that it was easier to become a Democrat than to wait for the GOP to become moderate again. So, as a guy who wants a moderate GOP to provide a reasonable alternative to the dems, I'm kind of bummed.
Which begs the question when moderate Dems and moderate GOPers will realize they are better off starting a third party. There are a slow of "alternative" parties out there and every single one of them will always be a marginalized party because they cater only to the extremes. Perot's Reform Party was the closest yet to becoming a real third party until he lost control and it simply became another right-wing fringe party.

I don't expect it to happen because the political will is simply not there. A moderate party forged in the middle and leaving the GOP to the social conservatives and the Democratic party to the social liberals would carve out a powerful niche for a moderate party based on sound fiscal policies and without a strong social agenda either way. But who would lead it? You need both someone charismatic and someone who could motivate people (or a person) with money. You're not going to start a new party without a lot of dough. But no one is willing to lay it on the line and take the chance.

I compare the political climate now to the "Reagan Revolution." A lot of this is simply swinging of the pendulum. I hate to overdramatize the current mood as anything more than a cylical change. The likelihood of a swing back toward the right in 5-10 years is always strong. But it won't happen with the GOP party of the last 10 years. The Democratic Party of the '90s under Clinton was nothing like the Democratic Party in 1981. The guard changed.

Right now the GOP shows no willingness to change that guard, but it will soon enough. However, that leader isn't Newt Gingrigh, it's not Sarah Palin and it's not Bobby Jindal. Being in the minority has a funny way of eventually making you realize you need to do something different.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A moderate party forged in the middle and leaving the GOP to the social conservatives and the Democratic party to the social liberals would carve out small niche of people who will actually vote strictly on fiscal policy

Fixed that for you.

There aren't enough people in the U.S. who can correctly spell fiscal to win an election by themselves. And even those who can spell the word don't always center their entire life around money.

[path12]

Which begs the question when moderate Dems and moderate GOPers will realize they are better off starting a third party. There are a slow of "alternative" parties out there and every single one of them will always be a marginalized party because they cater only to the extremes. Perot's Reform Party was the closest yet to becoming a real third party until he lost control and it simply became another right-wing fringe party.

I don't expect it to happen because the political will is simply not there. A moderate party forged in the middle and leaving the GOP to the social conservatives and the Democratic party to the social liberals would carve out a powerful niche for a moderate party based on sound fiscal policies and without a strong social agenda either way. But who would lead it? You need both someone charismatic and someone who could motivate people (or a person) with money. You're not going to start a new party without a lot of dough. But no one is willing to lay it on the line and take the chance.

There will be no major new party until one of the current two collapses because we're conditioned to think in terms of two parties.

However, the current crop of crazies who have hijacked the Republican party might well be collapsing if they keep deciding that the very best thing they can do is try and drive the moderates away. Palin/Bachmann '12 here we come!

And even as a liberal, I think it is very important to have a serious opposition party so while the schadenfreude is sweet in a way it is also really kind of concerning in the long run.

[Tigercat]

Screw opposition party, lets get a boatload of them involved by getting proportional representation started. Not that that will happen in my lifetime, but one can dream....

[sterlingice]

There will be no major new party until one of the current two collapses because we're conditioned to think in terms of two parties.

It has nothing-- no, that's not correct- but it has a hell of a lot more to do with campaign finance rules than voter's mindsets. Unless someone's about to put up, I dunno, at least $500M for this middle of the road party so they can run their campaigns. There's a reason why incumbents have a huge advantage, particularly in the House. It has something to do with name recognition but if you swapped incumbent and challenger money totals- that would buy a hell of a lot of name recognition for the challengers. And that $500M is probably a low number considering what it would cost to create a ground game in all 50 states.

Again, this goes back to why I'm a huge fan of publicly funded elections.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

McCain's loss is the wrost thing for this. They have deluded themselves into thinking it was because he wasn;t conservative instead of the real reasons - i.e. everything was against him - bad curren t president, hard for you to win third term in office, unpopular war, negative economics, etc.

Ross Douthat in his first column for the NY Times had a great spin on this, basically positing that Cheney being the Republican nominee would have been the best for the party (since the Republicans couldn't say they were not conservative enough and that's why they lost):

Op-Ed Columnist - Cheney for President - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/opinion/28douthat.html?ref=opinion)

[Galaril]

I honestly would hate to be in Michael Steele's position. You can cater to your socially conservative elements that are loyal to the party and continue to get slaughtered in elections. Or you can try and expand the party which in turn pisses off those socially conservative people who will want your head.

They went all in on the socially conservative crowds over the years and are now in a corner where the country's demographics have changed and the only way to get out of it is to open things up.

I heard on CNN that some polls not theirs stated that only 21% of Americans (either nationwide or just PA not sure I missed that part of it) now label; themselves Republicans. No matter which it is 20%sure is not good.

[Abe Sargent]

It has nothing-- no, that's not correct- but it has a hell of a lot more to do with campaign finance rules than voter's mindsets. Unless someone's about to put up, I dunno, at least $500M for this middle of the road party so they can run their campaigns. There's a reason why incumbents have a huge advantage, particularly in the House. It has something to do with name recognition but if you swapped incumbent and challenger money totals- that would buy a hell of a lot of name recognition for the challengers. And that $500M is probably a low number considering what it would cost to create a ground game in all 50 states.

Again, this goes back to why I'm a huge fan of publicly funded elections.

SI

You don;t delve deeply enough.

Candidates do what they need to do to get elected. I can guarantee that candidates do not like to pony up to the money express. They do it because it gets them elected, but no one wants to be beholden to someone else.

The reason that candidates need money is because voters vote money. Voters vote for the quick commercial spots, they vote the way a candidate appears, they vote the way someone who gave the candidate money (or vice versa) told them too.

If voters in America would sit down with an issues list of candidates, then vote whoever was closest to their positions, or whomever was closest to one or two position they cared about, then candidates would spend more time talking about issues and would never need to drop millions of dollars to win.

The money spent influences voters. If we simply had voters that would vote substance over flash, we would never need campaign finance reform. This is a problem the American voter has brought upon itself.

Simply publicly financing campaigns means that flash is still what people vote on. Just the candidates are less beholden. It treats the symptom and not the cause. We will still elect lousy candidates. There are a lot of qualified public servants who would be great in office but they could never win a campaign because they lack the flash.

That's the issue. Style over substance. That's why $$ wins. Change that, and you change the whole system. Keep that, and America has what it deserves.

[RainMaker]

I heard on CNN that some polls not theirs stated that only 21% of Americans (either nationwide or just PA not sure I missed that part of it) now label; themselves Republicans. No matter which it is 20%sure is not good.

Yeah, there are a lot more registered Democrats than there are registered Republicans. All Dems need to do these days is get their voters to show up and they win.

Take Pennsylvania for instance. There are 1 million more registered Democrats. The last Senate race had 4 million votes. That means any Republican candidate has to take a ton of votes from Democrats.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This is pretty much a non-issue from where I stand. As everyone knows, Specter has been a RINO for some time. He's likely not going to change his voting stance much, even though he will be called a Democrat. This really doesn't affect the balance of power at all. If anything, he'll just be pissing off Democrats instead of Republicans when he doesn't hold the party line.

FWIW......I think he loses the upcoming election no matter which side of the fence he's on.

[ISiddiqui]

FWIW......I think he loses the upcoming election no matter which side of the fence he's on.

I think as a Democratic candidate (and they are clearing the field for him) he's almost unbeatable.

[JPhillips]

This is pretty much a non-issue from where I stand. As everyone knows, Specter has been a RINO for some time. He's likely not going to change his voting stance much, even though he will be called a Democrat. This really doesn't affect the balance of power at all. If anything, he'll just be pissing off Democrats instead of Republicans when he doesn't hold the party line.

FWIW......I think he loses the upcoming election no matter which side of the fence he's on.

The difference is that he'll be feeling pressure from the left instead of the right. I doubt it changes things on a lot of issues, but when he shifts he'll now likely shift to the left instead of the right.

The key, though, will be if he votes for cloture. That could make a very big difference.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The key, though, will be if he votes for cloture. That could make a very big difference.

More importantly, it provides a good smoke screen if the Dems do have enough votes to block a filibuster. If it happens, all the criticism is going to come down on Specter and there's no doubt the Dems will let him take the bullet for them. Pretty smart move assuming they thought all of that out.

[larrymcg421]

If Obama campaigns for Specter, there's no way he loses the primary.

[kcchief19]

Fixed that for you.

There aren't enough people in the U.S. who can correctly spell fiscal to win an election by themselves. And even those who can spell the word don't always center their entire life around money.
Granted, I was being overly simplistic in boiling it down to fiscal policy. There is much more to it than that.

The GOP largely consists of two groups: social conservatives and moderates. The Democrats also consist largely of two groups: social liberals and moderates. The social agenda-driven fringes of both parties are minorities yet they largely dictate the direction of both parties. The overwhelming majority of people are in the middle and they don't care about abortion, gay marriage or gun control either way to make a difference in their vote.

A well-funded party where the core values are a balanced budget and the main issues are security, health care and education would dominate national politics in today's environment.

[kcchief19]

McCain's loss is the wrost thing for this. They have deluded themselves into thinking it was because he wasn;t conservative instead of the real reasons - i.e. everything was against him - bad curren t president, hard for you to win third term in office, unpopular war, negative economics, etc.
If McCain ran the campaign he ran in 2000, he would have won in 2008. He ran hard right in the primaries and kept running right. Had he run toward the middle and picked a moderate VP, I think he beats Obama. McCain didn't lose the election in October, he lost it in March when he didn't bolt toward the middle.
Ross Douthat in his first column for the NY Times had a great spin on this, basically positing that Cheney being the Republican nominee would have been the best for the party (since the Republicans couldn't say they were not conservative enough and that's why they lost):
Op-Ed Columnist - Cheney for President - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/opinion/28douthat.html?ref=opinion)
Interesting theory. Cheney wouldn't have won -- he would have got the stuffing beat out of him and made Obama look even more dominant. But it might have been good for the GOP to have the patron saint of the 15% of the furthest right people in the country get clobbered. I'll admit I'm perplexed by the GOP strategy today, which appears to be turning further to the right even when the country is going more centrist. Perhaps that is simply because all the moderate Republicans are gone from office and all that remains are the far right.

Bush lost the 2008 election for the Republicans the moment he won in 2004 and sealed the deal he started in 2000 when he picked Cheney. Cheney already had health problems before 2000 and it was clear he would never been able to handle the rigor of a campaign. Plus, even though he served in the House back in the day, he's a horrible campaigner. Add to that he said from the get-go that he wouldn't run, and you instantly setup a scenario that once Bush left office in 2004 or 2008, there would be no self-identified front-runner for the nomination and it would be a party free-for-all.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Bush made a horrible choice in 2000. Cheney was in charge of Bush's VP selection team and he went to Bush and gave him one name for the ticket: former Missouri Sen. Jack Danforth. Instead, Bush asked Cheney and the rest is history. If Danforth were on the ticket in 2000, I think Bush/Danforth would have more comfortably won in 2000 -- Danforth is a much more effective campaigner and much more substantial. Plus, Danforth wouldn't have meddled in Iraq and the war and left that to the professional military.

As you can tell I'm a pretty staunch Democrat. Jack Danforth is the only Republican I know I'd vote for president, and I would have done it in a heartbeat.

[ISiddiqui]

If McCain ran the campaign he ran in 2000, he would have won in 2008

I don't think there was a chance of that. After 8 years of Bush/Cheney, a Dem was going to win. The only thing was that Obama had to convince people that he was experienced enough. Nothing McCain did would have really changed that.

But it might have been good for the GOP to have the patron saint of the 15% of the furthest right people in the country get clobbered. I'll admit I'm perplexed by the GOP strategy today, which appears to be turning further to the right even when the country is going more centrist. Perhaps that is simply because all the moderate Republicans are gone from office and all that remains are the far right.

The attacks that the moderates lost the election are working to rally the base because they believe it and the moderates are... well, being moderates and not yelling or carrying on.

Hell, even McCain is facing a primary challenge for 2010 (though very unlikely to succeed, unlike in PA)

[sterlingice]

If McCain ran the campaign he ran in 2000, he would have won in 2008. He ran hard right in the primaries and kept running right. Had he run toward the middle and picked a moderate VP, I think he beats Obama. McCain didn't lose the election in October, he lost it in March when he didn't bolt toward the middle.

Not sure that's true or not. Let's assume he grabs, say, Romney as a running mate and had been running toward the middle, it's probably close. However, I think the bottom falling out of the economy and Bush presiding over that doomed whoever was running for the GOP. McCain might have had a shot but he didn't distance himself far enough from Bush in the last couple of years- heading closer than he had ever been politically.

SI

[larrymcg421]

Interesting thing about Danforth is that he was asked to help out with Bush's legal strategy in the 2000 election recount. However, he was emphatic that they not take the casse to federal court, because it went against the GOP's emphasis on state's rights. So they told him they didn't need him anymore.

[Fighter of Foo]

Why does anyone who's not stupidly partisan care what faction a US senator belongs to?

[chesapeake]

More importantly, it provides a good smoke screen if the Dems do have enough votes to block a filibuster. If it happens, all the criticism is going to come down on Specter and there's no doubt the Dems will let him take the bullet for them. Pretty smart move assuming they thought all of that out.

The Dems didn't think all of that out. We're not that devious.

And as Specter himself said yesterday, changing parties will not mean that he will be a sure vote on anything. I will also say that Obama, Reid and Senate Dems will go out of their way to ensure that Specter does not have to take any political bullets over the next two years.

[RainMaker]

FWIW......I think he loses the upcoming election no matter which side of the fence he's on.

Not as a Democrat. I'm fairly certain the Dems cut a deal with him that they wouldn't put up anyone in the primaries. Obama has said he'll campaign for him as well. There is little chance he loses the Democratic primary.

That's really all he has to worry about. Toomey will probably get the Republican nod unless Ridge runs, and Specter will slaughter Toomey.

[chesapeake]

If McCain ran the campaign he ran in 2000, he would have won in 2008.

If McCain had run the campaign he ran in 2000, Barack Obama would have soundly beaten Mitt Romney in the general election. You have to win your primary to be the nominee, and McCain never would have won that if he hadn't reversed his position on many of the things he supported back in 2000.

If you want to understand why Specter returned to the Democratic Party after so many years on the other side, you can start by examining how McCain had to reinvent himself as a right winger in order to win the GOP primary.

[chesapeake]

Not as a Democrat. I'm fairly certain the Dems cut a deal with him that they wouldn't put up anyone in the primaries. Obama has said he'll campaign for him as well. There is little chance he loses the Democratic primary.

That's really all he has to worry about. Toomey will probably get the Republican nod unless Ridge runs, and Specter will slaughter Toomey.

The party will back Specter. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee -- the official campaign entity of the Caucus -- always backs its incumbent, of which Specter is now one. Likewise with the NRSC for the other side.

But there is a Dem primary shaping up. The chair of the PA Board of Education said he's running as a Dem.

Specter would likely beat Toomey again. Ridge as an opponent would be interesting. But I've got to think that labor will continue to support Specter, despite this EFCA problem, and that Obama and Governor Rendell, both pretty popular in PA, will be able to keep the left placated and turned out.

Arlen is so darn prickly, however, that you just never know how constituents will respond. He could also get sick again and not run.

[Big Fo]

Why does anyone who's not stupidly partisan care what faction a US senator belongs to?

Going from 59 senators of one party to 60 gives them certain advantages that aren't there when going from 44 to 45, 53 to 54, etc.

[Flasch186]

FWIW......I think he loses the upcoming election no matter which side of the fence he's on.

Not to troll but since you put a speculative bet out there again, I'll state that your track record on calling these things seems to be awful.

[JPhillips]

The party will back Specter. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee -- the official campaign entity of the Caucus -- always backs its incumbent, of which Specter is now one. Likewise with the NRSC for the other side.

But there is a Dem primary shaping up. The chair of the PA Board of Education said he's running as a Dem.

Specter would likely beat Toomey again. Ridge as an opponent would be interesting. But I've got to think that labor will continue to support Specter, despite this EFCA problem, and that Obama and Governor Rendell, both pretty popular in PA, will be able to keep the left placated and turned out.

Arlen is so darn prickly, however, that you just never know how constituents will respond. He could also get sick again and not run.

Do you think Sestak stays out now?

[Fighter of Foo]

FWIW......I think he loses the upcoming election no matter which side of the fence he's on.

I am now betting on Specter immediately. Thank you!

[Fighter of Foo]

Going from 59 senators of one party to 60 gives them certain advantages that aren't there when going from 44 to 45, 53 to 54, etc.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but don't you still have to court the swing votes anyway?

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, the awesome:

Specter condemned Jim Jeffords' party switch in 2001 - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-specter-jeffords29-2009apr29,0,2430682.story)

When a Senate Republican left his party in 2001, elevating the Democrats to majority status, one member of the GOP was especially vocal about his displeasure: Arlen Specter.

Specter said then- Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords' decision to become an independent was disruptive to the functioning of Congress. He proposed a rule forbidding party switches that had the effect of vaulting the minority to majority status in the middle of a congressional session.

[Glengoyne]

Heck who can blame him. His own party came hard at him last time around. The Republicans are crazy. This is a long time party member whose only failing is that he retained some semblance of his own opinion. He failed to drink the Kool-Aid, so the same right wing party insiders that brought us Bush and Cheney set their sites on him. How stupid can you be? He is a shoe in for that seat. He can deliver a guaranteed senate, yet there is no room for that guy in the Republican party. It makes a lot more sense to take him out in the primary with someone who will never reach 40% in the general election.

[Glengoyne]

If McCain had run the campaign he ran in 2000, Barack Obama would have soundly beaten Mitt Romney in the general election. You have to win your primary to be the nominee, and McCain never would have won that if he hadn't reversed his position on many of the things he supported back in 2000.

If you want to understand why Specter returned to the Democratic Party after so many years on the other side, you can start by examining how McCain had to reinvent himself as a right winger in order to win the GOP primary.

I'm not so sure about McCain needing to change that much. The field was pretty darned weak, and the public was pretty soured on Bush era republicanism as it was.

Man what I'd give to have had my dream scenario have come true in 2000. Gore wins, but the economy slumps ousting him in 2004, in favor of McCain who wins the Republican primary as the party hard liners understand why a right wing toady like Bush just can't win an election. Even against a loser like Gore.

[ISiddiqui]

Recall that in 2000, Bush positioned himself as a moderate "Compassionate Conservative".

[larrymcg421]

I'm not so sure about McCain needing to change that much. The field was pretty darned weak, and the public was pretty soured on Bush era republicanism as it was.


But even against that weak field, McCain was dead in the water. His polls were in single digits, he was out of money, and campaign staff were abandoning him by the boatload. The fact he got the nomination is a great comeback, but how do you think he achieved that comeback? Why do you think, in the midst of Bush's plummeting approval ratings, he's giving an interview proudly boasting of how commonly he voted with Bush?

[ISiddiqui]

But even against that weak field, McCain was dead in the water. His polls were in single digits, he was out of money, and campaign staff were abandoning him by the boatload. The fact he got the nomination is a great comeback, but how do you think he achieved that comeback? Why do you think, in the midst of Bush's plummeting approval ratings, he's giving an interview proudly boasting of how commonly he voted with Bush?

Indeed. Lost in Obama's historic win is the fact that McCain staged one of the greatest political comebacks of all time. No one, probably not even himself, thought he'd get the nomination back in November of 2007. He was written off by every single person. Had no money. Staff abandoning him in droves (partially because he couldn't pay them, partially because they thought he was dead). Polling horribly. He should have left the race in December by all measures.

[sterlingice]

Wasn't it basically that him and Huckabee teamed up against Romney early on? They essentially traded support on Iowa and New Hampshire because it looked like otherwise, Romney would have won both and probably ran away to the nomination, iirc.

SI

[Tekneek]

It isn't a news flash that the GOP has swung hard to the right. It was what drove me from the party. I like the idea of conservative fiscal policy. I hate the idea of religion in government. Unfortunately, the GOP tries to force both and for that reason I hope they fail. Drop the religious nonsense and I could be brought back on board.

[stevew]

Any word out of Ed Rendell? Or is he basically going to let this go. He will certainly serve out some of specters term cause homeboy is not going to be alive in 5 years.

If we ever elect another statewide R I will be shocked.

[RainMaker]

Heck who can blame him. His own party came hard at him last time around. The Republicans are crazy. This is a long time party member whose only failing is that he retained some semblance of his own opinion. He failed to drink the Kool-Aid, so the same right wing party insiders that brought us Bush and Cheney set their sites on him. How stupid can you be? He is a shoe in for that seat. He can deliver a guaranteed senate, yet there is no room for that guy in the Republican party. It makes a lot more sense to take him out in the primary with someone who will never reach 40% in the general election.

Parties do come after people from time to time. The Democrats went hard after Lieberman in 2006 simply because he disagreed with them on one major issue. I don't think this is a party specific case.

However, it is plain fucking stupid on the Republican side. When the Dems tried to ouster Lieberman, it was in a liberal state that was going to elect the Democratic nominee regardless. In Pennsylvania, ousting Specter for a conservative like Toomey just guarantees a 20 point loss in 2010. The only Republican who stands a chance in the state are moderate ones. So I wouldn't call them crazy, just really fucking stupid.

[flere-imsaho]

Op-Ed in today's New York Times by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29snowe.html?em):

IT is disheartening and disconcerting, at the very least, that here we are today — almost exactly eight years after Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party — witnessing the departure of my good friend and fellow moderate Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, for the Democratic Party. And the announcement of his switch was all the more painful because I believe it didn’t have to be this way.

When Senator Jeffords became an independent in 2001, I said it was a sad day for the Republicans, but it would be even sadder if we failed to confront and learn from the devaluation of diversity within the party that contributed to his defection. I also noted that we were far from the heady days of 1998, when Republicans were envisioning the possibility of a filibuster-proof 60-vote margin. (Recall that in the 2000 election, most pundits were shocked when Republicans lost five seats, resulting in a 50-50 Senate.)

I could have hardly imagined then that, in 2009, we would fondly reminisce about the time when we were disappointed to fall short of 60 votes in the Senate. Regrettably, we failed to learn the lessons of Jim Jeffords’s defection in 2001. To the contrary, we overreached in interpreting the results of the presidential election of 2004 as a mandate for the party. This resulted in the disastrous elections of 2006 and 2008, which combined for a total loss of 51 Republicans in the House and 13 in the Senate — with a corresponding shift of the Congressional majority and the White House to the Democrats.

It was as though beginning with Senator Jeffords’s decision, Republicans turned a blind eye to the iceberg under the surface, failing to undertake the re-evaluation of our inclusiveness as a party that could have forestalled many of the losses we have suffered.

It is true that being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of “Survivor” — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe. But it is truly a dangerous signal that a Republican senator of nearly three decades no longer felt able to remain in the party.

Senator Specter indicated that his decision was based on the political situation in Pennsylvania, where he faced a tough primary battle. In my view, the political environment that has made it inhospitable for a moderate Republican in Pennsylvania is a microcosm of a deeper, more pervasive problem that places our party in jeopardy nationwide.

I have said that, without question, we cannot prevail as a party without conservatives. But it is equally certain we cannot prevail in the future without moderates.

In that same vein, I am reminded of a briefing by a prominent Republican pollster after the 2004 election. He was asked what voter groups Republicans might be able to win over. He responded: women in general, married women with children, Hispanics, the middle class in general, and independents.

How well have we done as a party with these groups? Unfortunately, the answer is obvious from the results of the last two elections. We should be reaching out to these segments of our population — not de facto ceding them to the opposing party.

There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party. Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities — indeed, it was when we began to emphasize social issues to the detriment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encountered an electoral backlash.

It is for this reason that we should heed the words of President Ronald Reagan, who urged, “We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.” He continued, “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”

I couldn’t agree more. We can’t continue to fold our philosophical tent into an umbrella under which only a select few are worthy to stand. Rather, we should view an expansion of diversity within the party as a triumph that will broaden our appeal. That is the political road map we must follow to victory.

[DaddyTorgo]

I wonder how long it will be before her and Shaheen (R-NH) abandon the party?

[larrymcg421]

I wonder how long it will be before her and Shaheen (R-NH) abandon the party?

Shaheen is a Democrat. The other female Republican moderate is Susan Collins, also from Maine.

[ISiddiqui]

That was on the website yesterday!

Today:

Op-Ed Contributor - It’s Still My Party - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/opinion/30whitman.html)


April 30, 2009
<NYT_KICKER>Op-Ed Contributor</NYT_KICKER>
<NYT_HEADLINE version="1.0" type=" ">It’s Still My Party </NYT_HEADLINE>

<NYT_BYLINE version="1.0" type=" ">By
<ALT-CODE idsrc="nyt-per" value="Whitman, Christine Todd" />CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
</PERSON>
</NYT_BYLINE><NYT_TEXT>I HAVE always admired Arlen Specter for his willingness to stand up for his principles and to put policy ahead of party when he thought it was necessary. I do, however, regret his decision to switch parties and I worry about the direction this country could go with a filibuster-proof Democratic majority. Some historians suggest that no president has had such power since 1937, when large Democratic majorities in Congress gave President Franklin Roosevelt tremendous leverage.

The United States needs two vibrant, competitive parties. With the economic crisis, the war in Iraq and countless other issues facing the nation, the stakes are too high to simply let one ideological segment of the country determine our fate. If we are to prevent this kind of one-party dominance, Republicans need to reassess where we are and what we stand for — and we need to do it now.

Unfortunately, a preview of the Republican Party’s future came from the reaction to Senator Specter’s switch — many conservatives evinced a sense of “I told you so” satisfaction and denigrated his service to the country. As was to be expected, the blogosphere is full of people saying that Arlen Specter was always a Democrat and now he’s simply proved it.
In reality, until Tuesday, Arlen Specter caucused with the Republicans, and he voted with his party 70 percent of the time in the 110th Congress. It is a sure bet that his voting record will now change. I fail to see the satisfaction in that.

Mr. Specter’s announcement portends a challenge for Republicans, in terms of both governance and political prospects. To those Republicans counting on the usual phenomenon of off-year election losses for the party holding the presidency, I say do not forget the examples of Roosevelt and George W. Bush, whose parties prospered in 1934 and 2002, respectively. Besides, given the re-election rate of incumbents and the number of Republicans from competitive districts who have retired, the chances of gaining more than a handful of seats is remote.

I also worry about the impact of this defection on the gubernatorial races this year in New Jersey and Virginia. Mr. Specter did not reach his decision in a vacuum. He was responding to what he and others saw as a trend in the party — a trend that will make it harder to get out a centrist message.

Arlen Specter made his decision to leave the party after years of being attacked by fellow Republicans. I can understand how he felt, but I believe that now, more than ever, it is important for us moderates to stay and work from within. One thing we can be sure of is that we will have no impact on the party’s direction if we leave.

Moderate Republicans should use Senator Specter’s switch as the impetus to force a re-evaluation of where our party is going — a review that can happen only from the inside. Besides, third parties in the United States don’t have a particularly successful history.

In the coming election cycle, we have the opportunity to remind the nation that our party is committed to such important values as fiscal restraint, less government interference in our everyday lives, environmental policies that promote a balanced approach between protection and economic interest, and a foreign policy that is engaged with the rest of the world. The responsibility of ensuring that the party follows the right path lies with those moderates who are willing to work to make it happen. I anticipate that centrists will convene in the coming days to discuss how we can return the party to the sensible middle.

This isn’t just about winning elections. To the extent we lose more members of the Republican Party, we lose what ability we have left to affect policy, and that is going to be devastating to our nation. Our democracy desperately needs two vibrant parties. And for Republicans to be that second party, we need to remind the nation of the principles for which we once stood.

We cannot simply be the party of no; we need to provide a compelling counterpoint to the Obama administration’s tax-spend-and-borrow policies. The Republican Party has a proud heritage and much to add to the current debates, but only if we can return to the principles that made us the party of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.

<NYT_AUTHOR_ID>Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican, was the governor of New Jersey from 1994 to 2001.

</NYT_AUTHOR_ID><NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM>
</NYT_TEXT>

[ISiddiqui]

Shaheen is a Democrat. The other female Republican moderate is Susan Collins, also from Maine.

And the answer is never, as they won't have any problems getting re-elected unless a massive scandel hits.

[ISiddiqui]

LOL

On First Day as Democrat, Specter (Again) Bucks His Party - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/29/AR2009042901142.html)

Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) began his first full day as a Democrat since the early 1960s at a party-switching celebration hosted by President Obama and Vice President Biden. He ended it by casting another vote against Obama, opposing his budget as too authoritarian in the rules it establishes for the health-care debate later this year.

[flere-imsaho]

Knowing a fair bit about Senator Snowe, I'd guess she'd retire before she'd switch parties. I could maybe see her going Independent if the GOP continues its rightward lurch.

Neither Snowe nor Collins will lose their seats. Collins just defeated a pretty moderate Democrat (Tom Allen, former Congressman) who was supposed to give her a good challenge. She beat him by double-digits, and it was never close.

And Snowe is a Maine institution. I'll be surprised if she even has a Democratic challenger in her next campaign (a challenger who isn't a sacrificial lamb).

[flere-imsaho]

Remind me, does the 60 number include Jeffords and Lieberman?

[DaddyTorgo]

Shaheen is a Democrat. The other female Republican moderate is Susan Collins, also from Maine.

whoops - my bad. that's what i meant.

*egg on face*

[JPhillips]

Remind me, does the 60 number include Jeffords and Lieberman?

Yes, as well as the not yet seated Franken.

[flere-imsaho]

Then, in my opinion, it's sort of a false "filibuster-proof" majority. It's not like you can ram just anything through - there's going to be some stuff with which Liebermann, Specter, Jeffords, or other Democrats just won't agree. And Reid's just not a tough enough guy to make a threat of retribution for bucking the "party line" a real threat.

I think all it means is that the Senate GOP isn't going to be able to derail any "common-sense" or moderate legislation, but then again if said legislation was "common-sense" or moderate you'd likely have some moderate GOPers not voting against cloture anyway.

So 60 is just a number. Not a magic number that suddenly lets you do anything, but a milepost on the road that says it's now incrementally easier to do something.

[RainMaker]

Then, in my opinion, it's sort of a false "filibuster-proof" majority. It's not like you can ram just anything through - there's going to be some stuff with which Liebermann, Specter, Jeffords, or other Democrats just won't agree. And Reid's just not a tough enough guy to make a threat of retribution for bucking the "party line" a real threat.

I think all it means is that the Senate GOP isn't going to be able to derail any "common-sense" or moderate legislation, but then again if said legislation was "common-sense" or moderate you'd likely have some moderate GOPers not voting against cloture anyway.

So 60 is just a number. Not a magic number that suddenly lets you do anything, but a milepost on the road that says it's now incrementally easier to do something.

I might be wrong, but I think it's more a matter of whether the GOP can fillibuster. There is no guarantee they'll get all 60 to vote for the bill, but I don't think it's common to have someone in your own party fillibuster it. The fillibuster is the main issue, not how the vote turns out.

[larrymcg421]

Remind me, does the 60 number include Jeffords and Lieberman?

There is no more Jeffords. I think you mean Sanders, and yes the 60 total includes them.

[cartman]

I am ashamed to say that John Cornyn is my Senator. He lacks the understanding of basic tenets of "checks and balances".

Power Line - John Cornyn: What the Specter Switch Means (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023450.php)

[ISiddiqui]

Checks and balances don't necessarily have to only apply to each branch checking each other.

[cartman]

Checks and balances don't necessarily have to only apply to each branch checking each other.

But that is how the founding fathers defined it, and he is now claiming they meant something else. The founding fathers were caught off-guard by the formation of political parties, and that wasn't something they considered when drafting the Constitution.

[ISiddiqui]

But that is how the founding fathers defined it, and he is now claiming they meant something else. The founding fathers were caught off-guard by the formation of political parties, and that wasn't something they considered when drafting the Constitution.

He's making a more nuanced arguement:

America's founders designed a government based upon checks and balances specifically to prevent a majority faction from imposing its unchecked will on the minority. American voters have traditionally acted to preserve this check and balance system, and accountability in Washington, by refusing to entrust one political party with total control of government.

[cartman]

I'm trying to find some statements from Cornyn where he expresses the same fears of one party rule in D.C. in the 2000-2006 timeframe.

[SirFozzie]

Well, here's the thing. Just like the automakers, the Republicans are blaming everything but themselves for their current unpopularity. The current finger pointing is a good example.

Most Emailed News Stories (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21906.html)

They are attempting to try the equivalent of a political "Bailout". Unfortunately, they are consistently shrinking their tent.

I'm noticing it more and more, more intolerance of views outside their own.

Are you anything but hardcore pro-life? Sorry, you're a RINO, no room in the tent for you.

Have you properly mollified the Club For Growth's hard-right financial stance? No? Sorry, no can do for you.

Are you going to speak anywhere that has someone who doesn't do 1 or 2? Traitor!

(this Notre Dame thing for example. Notre Dame has President Obama speaking as a commencement speaker, and is giving him an honorary degree.. and the hard-right fringe are suggesting they should change their name to "Northwestern Indiana Humanist University".

The Democratic Party grabbed the middle with the Blue Dogs and the middle class. The Republican isn't trying to get that middle back, they're running as far right as they can, and if they do not turn that around quick (and if Obama does turn things around economic wise), that 60-40 split in the Senate could still be a high water mark for the Repbulicans.

[SirFozzie]

here's a good graphic to show my point about the number of "center to center-righters" that just do not identify with the republican party. This is from FiveThirtyEight, and is a rough average of percentage of people who identify themselves as a member of a particular party over the last couple years.

http://pcd.dreamhosters.com/538/images/partisan.PNG

Notes: The Democratic Party slightly drops, a couple points, but we're looking at about a 10 point drop in Republican-side identification, with the corresponding increase in the independent line.

[flere-imsaho]

This Democratic ascendancy won't last forever, just like the GOP's win streak from 2000 to 2004 (electorally) didn't last either.

However, I'm having trouble seeing what the realistic path forward is for the GOP.

If I had to summarize the lessons learned by the Democrats by 2004 that they put into effect that led to 2006 and 2008 they'd be: recruit good and moderate candidates, speak to middle America, stop running from fights with the Republicans, find a good Presidential candidate for once.

What's the gameplan for the GOP (that will really work)?

[cartman]

He's making a more nuanced arguement:

He might have been nuance int that quote, but there's no nuance in this one:

While this would unquestionably damage our country's interests in the short-term, the complete absence of any checks and balances in Washington could have a significant impact on next year's midterm elections.

[JPhillips]

here's a good graphic to show my point about the number of "center to center-righters" that just do not identify with the republican party. This is from FiveThirtyEight, and is a rough average of percentage of people who identify themselves as a member of a particular party over the last couple years.

http://pcd.dreamhosters.com/538/images/partisan.PNG

Notes: The Democratic Party slightly drops, a couple points, but we're looking at about a 10 point drop in Republican-side identification, with the corresponding increase in the independent line.

The Republican base is a shrinking demographic while the Democratic base is an expanding demographic. I remember reading somewhere that McCain would have won if the makeup of the country was the same as in 1992. Too many people running the GOP still believe they can win by locking down a larger percentage of their demographic, but the reality is that they have to expand into different demographics which will only happen if they moderate their positions.

It will happen eventually, but they could take another whipping in 2010 before enough people figure out the reality of their problem.

[sterlingice]

This Democratic ascendancy won't last forever, just like the GOP's win streak from 2000 to 2004 (electorally) didn't last either.

However, I'm having trouble seeing what the realistic path forward is for the GOP.

If I had to summarize the lessons learned by the Democrats by 2004 that they put into effect that led to 2006 and 2008 they'd be: recruit good and moderate candidates, speak to middle America, stop running from fights with the Republicans, find a good Presidential candidate for once.

What's the gameplan for the GOP (that will really work)?

That's easy. Whoever grabs the Hispanic vote over the next 20 years is well on their way to building a huge coalition.

If there is a strong Hispanic governor from, say, a southwest or midwest state, who is a pretty strong fiscal conservative runs and becomes the face of the party while marginalizing the social conservatives- there's your new strong GOP. I think people can get behind fiscal conservatism- at least some of them- if you make it more nuanced. Rather than beating the "small government, small government, small government" drum constantly- pick and choose the battles. All those super libertarians who basically want to starve out government by cutting off tax funding- that's unrealistic pie-in-the-sky but they don't see it. But you could easily make some inroads with some "smarter government" and "more bang for your buck" packaging. It needs to be something less on the nose than "if you vote for us, we'll give you tax money back". People are tired of hearing that- they want their money back but the way it is phrased just sounds like a bribe.

It's not as if the social conservatives are going to find a home in the Democratic party so they will have to vote GOP. Similar to so many southern state Democrats up until the last 20 years who voted that way for nearly 100 despite having very dissimilar interests because they had been so ticked off by the Civil War and Reconstruction.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

The problem I see with the ascendancy of an electable "moderate" candidate to the GOP national stage is that the right wing is in control of the party (its message and its money) in a way the left-wing of the Democratic party hasn't been.

[RainMaker]

This Democratic ascendancy won't last forever, just like the GOP's win streak from 2000 to 2004 (electorally) didn't last either.

However, I'm having trouble seeing what the realistic path forward is for the GOP.

If I had to summarize the lessons learned by the Democrats by 2004 that they put into effect that led to 2006 and 2008 they'd be: recruit good and moderate candidates, speak to middle America, stop running from fights with the Republicans, find a good Presidential candidate for once.

What's the gameplan for the GOP (that will really work)?

Nothing lasts forever but it could be a long time before we see Republicans in power again in Congress. The House is way out of reach right now and we'll have a fresh new round of gerrymandering done in a couple years with heavily Democratically controlled states. That'll make it a little more difficult for the GOP to make big strides.

2010 is also looking bad on the Senate front for the GOP. FiveThirtyEight.com ranks the Senate seats by likelihood of changing parties and 7 of the top 8 are Republican seats (4 of those are retiring Senators I believe). There is a good chance Democrats gain a few more Senate seats which makes the advantage ridiculous.

Unless something dramatically goes wrong in the coming years, it's going to be a long time. If the economy shows some strong signs of improving by this time next year, I don't think the Republicans have a shot at gaining anything. The demographics are just heavily against them until they open up the party more.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Here's a question that I was a little too young to know at the time: Was the Republican Revolution of '94 something that showed up early in the polls? Did it show up late, or was it an election day surprise? I guess my question is at what point did it become clear that the Dems were losing Congress back then?

[RainMaker]

The Republican base is a shrinking demographic while the Democratic base is an expanding demographic. I remember reading somewhere that McCain would have won if the makeup of the country was the same as in 1992. Too many people running the GOP still believe they can win by locking down a larger percentage of their demographic, but the reality is that they have to expand into different demographics which will only happen if they moderate their positions.

It will happen eventually, but they could take another whipping in 2010 before enough people figure out the reality of their problem.

As someone who wants to see the GOP get back on track and pose as a legitimate opposition party, it's going to take a massive overhaul of the party. They have been attacking the fastest growing demographics in this country. Blame hispanics for economic problems. Make vague racial remarks and try to justify them. Blame Godless atheists for every social problem in this country. Three groups of people that are growing massively in this country and they are attacking them. Just a bunch of complete fucking morons.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The demographics are just heavily against them until they open up the party more.

But if you give up on the things that actually matter to you then what's the point in gaining control for the exception of those that are just power hungry?
Not necessarily arguing the point you're making, just pointing out why it really doesn't matter much if they do or don't.

What has to change for it to actually be meaningful is a reversal in the direction the voting public has taken. If that doesn't happen then the only difference is in pale shades of grey.

edit to add: By the end of the next election cycle you'll either see a reversal or you'll see the GOP split into it's relatively distinct factions over the following decade. Oddly enough, that might actually be the start of a 2+ party system that so many (here at least) seem to want. It wouldn't be a system that could take the White House outright any time in the forseeable future but might theoretically be enough to deny the D's a chance to get anything except the most lukewarm legislation through Congress. Still a long time in the making but I might actually call that one of the more likely scenarios.

[RainMaker]

Here's a question that I was a little too young to know at the time: Was the Republican Revolution of '94 something that showed up early in the polls? Did it show up late, or was it an election day surprise? I guess my question is at what point did it become clear that the Dems were losing Congress back then?

From what I've read on the topic, it was foreseen somewhat. Democrats had started losing elections back in 1992 and Republicans really pushed the Christian vote that year by using some of Clinton's policies against them. There were also a lot of Democratic scandals similar to what we saw in 2006.

[lungs]

But if you give up on the things that actually matter to you then what's the point in gaining control for the exception of those that are just power hungry?


That's fine if the goal is to become irrelevant.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's fine if the goal is to become irrelevant.

See my addendum.

[larrymcg421]

One thing I expect to see is more nonsense where the nominee is required to abandon judicial ethics and state how they rule on several cases, specifically abortion and I bet gay marriage will be asked now. The fact is that the president's nominee should get through if they are experienced, smart, and qualified.

[JonInMiddleGA]

One thing I expect to see is more nonsense where the nominee is required to abandon judicial ethics and state how they rule on several cases, specifically abortion and I bet gay marriage will be asked now. The fact is that the president's nominee should get through if they are experienced, smart, and qualified.

But "qualified" remains in the eye of the beholder. For that matter so does "smart" to some extent.

And as a totally random aside, wouldn't we traditionally prefer a judge to be known as "wise" than "smart"?

[RainMaker]

But if you give up on the things that actually matter to you then what's the point in gaining control for the exception of those that are just power hungry?
Not necessarily arguing the point you're making, just pointing out why it really doesn't matter much if they do or don't.

What has to change for it to actually be meaningful is a reversal in the direction the voting public has taken. If that doesn't happen then the only difference is in pale shades of grey.

It does matter though if they do. Would you rather have a guy in power that you agree with on 75% of the issues or 25%? That's what the Republican Party doesn't see right now.

Lets take Pennsylvania for instance. It's a Democratic state with a massive voter registration advantage for them. Now there are a lot of conservatives who want Toomey to get the nomination because he is a staunch conservative. The problem is that Toomey will get slaughtered in the general. Tom Ridge would be a much better choice, would agree with the party on most of the issues, and actually has a decent shot at getting elected in Pennsylvania. But they won't run Ridge because of one issue, abortion.

I guess what I'm saying is that the demographics of this country are changing. Hoping that those demographics shift backwards is just a bad solution. So why not aim to put the guy in power who you agree with 75% of the time over the guy who you agree with 25% of the time? It's like going to an ice cream shop in hopes of getting chocolate ice cream. Seeing they are sold out and opting for the piece of dog shit outside the store instead of vanilla which is at least edible.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't remember 1994 being much of a surprise to independent observers, to be honest. The Democrats, especially in the House, had an increasing number of scandals in the years leading up to 1994 and Clinton pretty much got off on the wrong foot, PR-wise, almost immediately after being inaugurated.

Even though Clinton was "fresh air" as the first Democratic President since Carter, most of the country thought the Democrats in Congress were a pretty lousy lot. When Clinton fumbled through his first year, I think it solidified a lot of preconceived notions and swung the balance the other way.

It's important to note, however, that the key thing was that the Republicans had not held a majority in the House for 40 years, I think, so it was a pretty epic shift that way.

[RainMaker]

edit to add: By the end of the next election cycle you'll either see a reversal or you'll see the GOP split into it's relatively distinct factions over the following decade. Oddly enough, that might actually be the start of a 2+ party system that so many (here at least) seem to want. It wouldn't be a system that could take the White House outright any time in the forseeable future but might theoretically be enough to deny the D's a chance to get anything except the most lukewarm legislation through Congress. Still a long time in the making but I might actually call that one of the more likely scenarios.

I think that hurts the party more. It ensures you never win another Presidential election again. The D's would win the blue states and the two Republican parties would split up the red states. The only way the 3rd party works is if it is moderate enough to grab a lot of D's too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So why not aim to put the guy in power who you agree with 75% of the time over the guy who you agree with 25% of the time?

You say that as though there's actually someone who hits the 75% of the time consistently.

A lot of voters have already been settling for a candidate that they weren't all that thrilled about on a daily basis -- whether it's social moderates voting for social conservatives or social conservatives voting for candidates with different priorities -- at some point it gets rather pointless.

On your ice cream analogy, at some point it becomes a matter of going to a different store altogether. Eating whatever is on the street in front (and I'll resist drawing an analogy between your theoretical dog shit & McCain) isn't the only choice.

[RainMaker]

You say that as though there's actually someone who hits the 75% of the time consistently.

A lot of voters have already been settling for a candidate that they weren't all that thrilled about on a daily basis -- whether it's social moderates voting for social conservatives or social conservatives voting for candidates with different priorities -- at some point it gets rather pointless.

On your ice cream analogy, at some point it becomes a matter of going to a different store altogether. Eating whatever is on the street in front (and I'll resist drawing an analogy between your theoretical dog shit & McCain) isn't the only choice.

Settling is just how politics is done. Hardcore conservatives don't win much in blue or purple states. If this was Alabama, I completely understand not wanting to compromise. But ultimately, you have to make a decision as a party as to what candidate you can put up that can win and agrees with your views the most. The Democrats did it well by putting in guys like Webb and Tester in right leaning states.

When your views fall in the minority, you sometimes have to take what you can get.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think that hurts the party more. It ensures you never win another Presidential election again.

With firm enough control of Congress, having the White House isn't nearly as critical. And in that scenario control of the White House becomes a possibility through the Electoral College if you can just split enough votes to prevent an outright win and throw the election to the House.

The only way the 3rd party works is if it is moderate enough to grab a lot of D's too. If there are indeed as many voting moderates as some here claim, then it seems likely that this would occur, with these moderates splitting roughly down the middle between the R's who chose that route and the D's (who would first try to hedge the middle to prevent the vote loss).

[JonInMiddleGA]

When your views fall in the minority, you sometimes have to take what you can get.

Or you turn it on it's ear and play for an actual win. At some point, it's better to lose and keep your principals than abandon them almost completely & win a meaningless victory.

[Fighter of Foo]

Settling is just how politics is done. Hardcore conservatives don't win much in blue or purple states. If this was Alabama, I completely understand not wanting to compromise. But ultimately, you have to make a decision as a party as to what candidate you can put up that can win and agrees with your views the most. The Democrats did it well by putting in guys like Webb and Tester in right leaning states.

When your views fall in the minority, you sometimes have to take what you can get.

The independent spike in the middle of that chart above is a reflection of people leaving politics entirely.

We have factions in this country, not parties.

[molson]

here's a good graphic to show my point about the number of "center to center-righters" that just do not identify with the republican party. This is from FiveThirtyEight, and is a rough average of percentage of people who identify themselves as a member of a particular party over the last couple years.

http://pcd.dreamhosters.com/538/images/partisan.PNG

Notes: The Democratic Party slightly drops, a couple points, but we're looking at about a 10 point drop in Republican-side identification, with the corresponding increase in the independent line.

I'm glad to see that green line go up. I hope that trend continues, at the expense of both parties.

[RainMaker]

With firm enough control of Congress, having the White House isn't nearly as critical. And in that scenario control of the White House becomes a possibility through the Electoral College if you can just split enough votes to prevent an outright win and throw the election to the House.
How do you control congress? The Republican Party is already at a huge disadvantage in voter identification.

If there are indeed as many voting moderates as some here claim, then it seems likely that this would occur, with these moderates splitting roughly down the middle between the R's who chose that route and the D's (who would first try to hedge the middle to prevent the vote loss).
I think much of this country is moderate. If you picked a random guy off the street and asked them their views on a number of issues, they'd probably fall in the middle somewhere with a slight lean in one direction or the other.

The best chance at a 3rd Party would be something that is moderate with libertarian leanings. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. The Libertarian Party is too extreme for it at the moment. But the upcoming generation has libertarian leanings and I think a 3rd party could take advantage of that. Get them to identify with the party early on and see it reap the benefits in the next 20 years.

[RainMaker]

Or you turn it on it's ear and play for an actual win. At some point, it's better to lose and keep your principals than abandon them almost completely & win a meaningless victory.

Principals are fine, but letting the greater of two evils win an election on principal is just self-destructive.

[Tekneek]

Principals are fine, but letting the greater of two evils win an election on principal is just self-destructive.

I had to decide which principle I cared most about. Was it my desire for conservative fiscal policies? Was it my desire to have a government free from religion? Or was it my desire to have a government that promoted science? I chose the candidate that was trying to offer 2 of the 3, over the GOP candidate that was (at best) offering 1 of the 3.

[JPhillips]

One thing I expect to see is more nonsense where the nominee is required to abandon judicial ethics and state how they rule on several cases, specifically abortion and I bet gay marriage will be asked now. The fact is that the president's nominee should get through if they are experienced, smart, and qualified.

I'd agree with that if you were talking about political appointees, but not about SC judges. The fact is that a judge will be on the bench for years after the President is out of office and regardless of how much we want to deny it, a judicial nominee does have a set of beliefs that will influence their rulings. I think it's perfectly legitimate for Senators to ask questions about beliefs and I wish the media would stop acting like those questions are out of bounds.

[Fighter of Foo]

I had to decide which principal I cared most about. Was it my desire for conservative fiscal policies? Was it my desire to have a government free from religion? Or was it my desire to have a government that promoted science? I chose the candidate that was trying to offer 2 of the 3, over the GOP candidate that was (at best) offering 1 of the 3.

Which one of the three was the GOP candidate offering?

[Tekneek]

I think it's perfectly legitimate for Senators to ask questions about beliefs and I wish the media would stop acting like those questions are out of bounds.

It is information that is interesting to know, but I don't believe it determines whether someone is "qualified" for the job. It may very well determine whether someone would like to see them confirmed or not, but their political views do not determine their qualifications.

[RainMaker]

Which one of the three was the GOP candidate offering?
Curious to hear this too.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I had to decide which principal I cared most about.

It was between Belding and Skinner for me.

[JPhillips]

It is information that is interesting to know, but I don't believe it determines whether someone is "qualified" for the job. It may very well determine whether someone would like to see them confirmed or not, but their political views do not determine their qualifications.

What are the qualifications? The Constitution leaves that up to the President and the Senate. We generally expect an established, respected legal mind and I'd bet that at least hundreds of people would meet that requirement. What's left, and what really matters in term of what the Court does, is the underlying beliefs upon which the Justices see the world.

Not only do I not see it as verboten to ask the nominee their thoughts on Roe v. Wade, but I think it;s essential for that information to be made public before a person is given a lifetime seat on a team of nine. Isn't it obvious that the reason they don't want to answer these questions has far less to do with bias and far more to do with providing as little material for opponents as possible?

[Tekneek]

Which one of the three was the GOP candidate offering?

At best, conservative fiscal policy (but I wasn't really sold on that either). :D

You also hit at the problem with the GOP, from my point of view.

The Libertarian Party lost me this time, for the first time since 1992. I was not readily in Bob Barr's camp due to his history (pro-Drug War, pro-Patriot Act, anti-gay marriage, to name a few problem areas). Also, his VP candidate professing admiration for Sarah "We'll promote Autism research, so why are we spending money on fruit fly research?" Palin really hurt them with me.

I could have voted for a LP candidate that I was not completely behind, or I could vote AGAINST McCain/Palin and get a candidate who was at least interested in promoting science and not feeling obligated to turn this into a theocracy. So I went with Obama.

[Tekneek]

It was between Belding and Skinner for me.

Hah. I should go edit that now. :)

[Tekneek]

What are the qualifications? The Constitution leaves that up to the President and the Senate. We generally expect an established, respected legal mind and I'd bet that at least hundreds of people would meet that requirement.

Yes, that determines the "qualifications." These are relatively objective. At least 1 of Bush's nominees was so woefully unqualified that it did not really matter what her views were on anything.

Not only do I not see it as verboten to ask the nominee their thoughts on Roe v. Wade, but I think it;s essential for that information to be made public before a person is given a lifetime seat on a team of nine. Isn't it obvious that the reason they don't want to answer these questions has far less to do with bias and far more to do with providing as little material for opponents as possible?

I said that information can certainly be used to determine whether someone is confirmed or not, but that it has little or nothing to do with their "qualifications" for the job.

[lungs]

edit to add: By the end of the next election cycle you'll either see a reversal or you'll see the GOP split into it's relatively distinct factions over the following decade. Oddly enough, that might actually be the start of a 2+ party system that so many (here at least) seem to want. It wouldn't be a system that could take the White House outright any time in the forseeable future but might theoretically be enough to deny the D's a chance to get anything except the most lukewarm legislation through Congress. Still a long time in the making but I might actually call that one of the more likely scenarios.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen either. Southerners have proven to be pretty fickle when it comes to party loyalty, but they still generally stay together. I could see something similar to a Democrat/Dixiecrat split for an election cycle or two before things get realigned.

Oddly, given how blacks have voted on gay rights and polled on gay rights, this might in fact be the future match for the current socially conservative wing of the GOP.

[Tekneek]

Oddly, given how blacks have voted on gay rights and polled on gay rights, this might in fact be the future match for the current socially conservative wing of the GOP.

Which, given the history of civil rights in this nation, still blows my mind.

[larrymcg421]

I'd agree with that if you were talking about political appointees, but not about SC judges. The fact is that a judge will be on the bench for years after the President is out of office and regardless of how much we want to deny it, a judicial nominee does have a set of beliefs that will influence their rulings. I think it's perfectly legitimate for Senators to ask questions about beliefs and I wish the media would stop acting like those questions are out of bounds.

I think it's even more improper with judges than for political appointees. The fact is people want to know these days how the judge is going to rule on Roe v. Wade and other issues. They want to know that beforehand. I think it's highly unethical for a judge to reveal their views on an issue they know is going to come before the court.

[JonInMiddleGA]

How do you control congress? The Republican Party is already at a huge disadvantage in voter identification.

Like I mentioned earlier, I also tend to self-identify as an independent. And a series of McCainesque candidates would pretty much end national GOP identification in the South, absent anything else among the choices (which polls often offer as Dem, Rep, or Ind. with the occasional Other thrown in there), you'd see a significant decline in GOP self-identification. Hell, that has already anecdotally happened with people I know.

I think much of this country is moderate. If you picked a random guy off the street and asked them their views on a number of issues, they'd probably fall in the middle somewhere with a slight lean in one direction or the other.

I'd argue a sigificant lean in one direction or another if you ask the right questions (and by that I just mean enough questions to get a solid read). And those moderates are the least likely to go vote, which renders them less important when it comes to electing candidates.

The best chance at a 3rd Party would be something that is moderate with libertarian leanings. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

I tend to assume that one of the GOP splits would basically end up as what you describe here. Or at least that was one of the flavors I was referring to.

[RainMaker]

Oddly, given how blacks have voted on gay rights and polled on gay rights, this might in fact be the future match for the current socially conservative wing of the GOP.

I don't think gay rights is a big issue in the black community though. They may not be for it, but I don't think they'll be voting for politicians based on it.

To get the black vote, it would take a complete overhaul of their stance on a lot of issues. The Southern Strategy that started back with Nixon is still being used to some degree. You have candidates for party offices sending out songs on a CD called "Barack the Magic Negro" while party rallies have no diversity and at times bordered on KKK rallies in content. Not to mention policies that are not as helpful to their situation as Democrat ones.

Going the social conservative route is stupid. They should have been going the small government, stay out of everyone's business route to rebuild the party.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, the last major regional party change happened in the South (disaffected Democrats broke off to form a 3rd party but eventually migrated to the GOP) so it's not without precedent.

Of course one could argue that this is already underway, in another region. In the Mountain West & Plains, which have typically been GOP territory, we're seeing inroads made by moderate Democrats with common-sense approaches to policy. If such a trend continues, the GOP ends up as basically a South (really Southeast + Texas) regional party. Then, if they were to solidify as a social conservative party, they'd only further a descent into a regional party. If, on the other hand, the fiscal conservative/social moderate wing wrests control back, they start to lose the South (perhaps to independent, social conservative candidates?) and fight back in the heartland, but will they have lost too much ground?

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I mention that I don't see a realistic roadmap back to electoral strength, right now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

They should have been going the small government, stay out of everyone's business route to rebuild the party.

But if you're right about the role of demographic shifts then that doesn't accomplish anything in the end either.

[JonInMiddleGA]

We have factions in this country, not parties.

Before the thread moves too much farther, I just wanted to highlight this as being one of the better politically oriented comments I've seen in a thread here in quite some times. It deserved more attention that it got initially as the pace of the thread picked up about the same time & headed onto another tangent.

[sterlingice]

I'm glad to see that green line go up. I hope that trend continues, at the expense of both parties.

I'm curious how many people out there are "independent in name only". For instance, right now, conservatives aren't happy with the direction of the GOP. However, if given a choice of generic Dem or generic Rep- it's going to be Rep every time. At the end of the day, how many people claim to be independent for an air of impartiality when really they just don't want to be associated with their true party of choice.

Also, I wonder what the numbers looked like in 1992-1996 and if there was a similar graph.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm curious how many people out there are "independent in name only". For instance, right now, conservatives aren't happy with the direction of the GOP. However, if given a choice of generic Dem or generic Rep- it's going to be Rep every time. At the end of the day, how many people claim to be independent for an air of impartiality when really they just don't want to be associated with their true party of choice.

Also, I wonder what the numbers looked like in 1992-1996 and if there was a similar graph.

SI

Here ya go, I'll let you sort it out, my eyes are sort of crossing.
1940-94
http://members.cox.net/fweil/PartyID.gif
1992-99
http://members.cox.net/fweil/PartyID9299.gif

edit to add: I'm not sure that last one is even readable without the original colors.

editing again: here's one more you might like, congressional voting by party & year.
http://members.cox.net/fweil/VoteHouse3298.gif

[lungs]

I'm curious how many people out there are "independent in name only". At the end of the day, how many people claim to be independent for an air of impartiality when really they just don't want to be associated with their true party of choice.


*raises hand*

I claim to be independent, but given the choice at this point in time, give me the D over the R.

But a few years ago I would have been flip flopped in that regard.

[sterlingice]

Here ya go, I'll let you sort it out, my eyes are sort of crossing.
1940-94
http://members.cox.net/fweil/PartyID.gif
1992-99
http://members.cox.net/fweil/PartyID9299.gif

edit to add: I'm not sure that last one is even readable without the original colors.

Yeah, that second one is kindof tough to read ;)

SI

[RainMaker]

But if you're right about the role of demographic shifts then that doesn't accomplish anything in the end either.

I think one of the biggest demographic shifts we are seeing is younger people wanting government to mind their own business.

Two issues here:

Marijuana - Why not push to legalize it? It's really not that bad for you and isn't a nuisance on society. It would be great for businesses and create jobs in this country. Make some of our streets safer.

Gambling - Lot of gambling is legal in this country and there are huge double standards. Come out and make it legal. Discuss all the great business opportunities it opens and jobs we can bring in.

Both of these issues are government over-stepping their bounds. I don't think it would hurt them badly with social conservatives but it would dramatically open the door for young voters in this country. Run on the stance that whether you like the two vices or not, the government should not be telling us what to do with our money or our body in our home. That it's a small government stance, not a pro-marijuana/gambling one.

[sterlingice]

Nothing lasts forever but it could be a long time before we see Republicans in power again in Congress. The House is way out of reach right now and we'll have a fresh new round of gerrymandering done in a couple years with heavily Democratically controlled states. That'll make it a little more difficult for the GOP to make big strides.

2010 is also looking bad on the Senate front for the GOP. FiveThirtyEight.com ranks the Senate seats by likelihood of changing parties and 7 of the top 8 are Republican seats (4 of those are retiring Senators I believe). There is a good chance Democrats gain a few more Senate seats which makes the advantage ridiculous.

Unless something dramatically goes wrong in the coming years, it's going to be a long time. If the economy shows some strong signs of improving by this time next year, I don't think the Republicans have a shot at gaining anything. The demographics are just heavily against them until they open up the party more.

I love how it's written in stone that the Democrats are now in control for good. Aside from being the party than can never get their stuff together and on the same page, these things are cyclical. This happens and has happened over and over in history. Unless it's suddenly 10 years of super prosperity, we're going to be right back here sometime in the next decade or two talking about how the Democrats are marginalized and will never win again.

I took a political parties class in 2004, my last semester at KU. At the time, it was all doom and gloom for the Democrats. Evil gerrymandering from the 2000 census and draconian rules manipulation by the GOP were going to destroy the party. They had no leader and no plan. They couldn't get young people interested in politics and without that, there was no future. They couldn't raise money nearly as well as the GOP since they didn't cater to the rich and without money, you can't do a thing in politics.

Or at least that was the meme at the time. Not from the teacher but if you saw the news or read books or anything. That was barely 5 years ago and things are completely the opposite now. The one thing that my professor said that stuck with me (paraphrased), tho, is that it's hard to recruit good young talent to your party to run when they have a harder chance of winning. If you're trying to run for office in, say, Pennsylvania, since we keep mentioning it- what party do you want to be in if all you care about is gaining power (and, at the end of the day, that's a lot of these folks).

Soon, when the Democrats can't give everyone a pony, people will get sick of them and go back to the Republicans. In the end, there are a couple of things that keep this pendulum swinging. First is that people have short memories and they forget why they preferred one party to another so they'll just get mad at whoever is in power, even if it's the one they best identify with. Second, a housecleaning is always needed for the parties themselves. They get fat and complacent and forget that they do need to do some things of substance or reinvent their image/substance to get votes.

The one thing that is constant, however, due to our funding rules and structure is that there will almost always be 2 parties. The biggest change that will occur is that a party may die out but soon another would take its place as the big rival. Because we use a plurality voting system- we aren't going to see any long running third parties popping up any time soon. If one emerges, it will fairly quickly (a decade or two) just displace one of the current two. Any party that continually finishes third will get absorbed by one of the other two because there's no funding or power prize for participation.

SI

[sterlingice]

I think one of the biggest demographic shifts we are seeing is younger people wanting government to mind their own business.

Two issues here:

Marijuana - Why not push to legalize it? It's really not that bad for you and isn't a nuisance on society. It would be great for businesses and create jobs in this country. Make some of our streets safer.

Gambling - Lot of gambling is legal in this country and there are huge double standards. Come out and make it legal. Discuss all the great business opportunities it opens and jobs we can bring in.

Both of these issues are government over-stepping their bounds. I don't think it would hurt them badly with social conservatives but it would dramatically open the door for young voters in this country. Run on the stance that whether you like the two vices or not, the government should not be telling us what to do with our money or our body in our home. That it's a small government stance, not a pro-marijuana/gambling one.

Gambling and pot are places to start but I think you're still going to run into a party schizophrenia issue with gay marriage. No one goes to the polls to vote single issue on gambling. A few on pot. But it's hard to reconcile that you're ok with the government staying out of people's casinos and head shops but not their bedrooms. And that's one issue where young voters differ pretty strongly from older voters- the younger you get when polling, the higher the numbers in favor of civil unions and gay marriage. It's also a much stronger pull as a single issue vote.

The spot the GOP is in is that it's one issue they just can't change on without completely alienating half the base.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Rain, if you don't think a push to legalize pot would cause the loss of the social conservative base, you really don't know them very well. And even the gambling one would lose anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 of the (social conservative) base out of the gate & I don't believe it would gain anywhere near enough votes to make it up, it's not a strong enough single issue.

[RainMaker]

Gambling and pot are places to start but I think you're still going to run into a party schizophrenia issue with gay marriage. No one goes to the polls to vote single issue on gambling. A few on pot. But it's hard to reconcile that you're ok with the government staying out of people's casinos and head shops but not their bedrooms. And that's one issue where young voters differ pretty strongly from older voters- the younger you get when polling, the higher the numbers in favor of civil unions and gay marriage. It's also a much stronger pull as a single issue vote.

The spot the GOP is in is that it's one issue they just can't change on without completely alienating half the base.

SI

I still think they can maintain an argument to keep the homophobes and closeted ones happy. If you had a law banning gay sex, that would be similar to gambling and marijuana. Marriage is a little different. I still think they should take a hands-off approach and just say it's up to the states to decide and not our business (not advocating it but not going against it).

I don't think gambling or marijuana are going to bring you issue voters. But I do think they would help transform the GOP into a party that just wants to do the basics and stay out of our business. The GOP's biggest problem is that they want to act as the moral police when they should be saying the government shouldn't have that power.

It's a message problem. When you come out and call those pro-choice people baby killers, it's not helping you get votes. But when you simply say "we feel it's a state issue", you are getting the same results without alienating women.

[RainMaker]

Rain, if you don't think a push to legalize pot would cause the loss of the social conservative base, you really don't know them very well. And even the gambling one would lose anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 of the (social conservative) base out of the gate & I don't believe it would gain anywhere near enough votes to make it up, it's not a strong enough single issue.

If that's true, then the GOP is sunk. It's tough to advocate small government while having your voters want big government.

Perhaps that would be the case up front (although I don't see where those voters will go). But long term, it would benefit them. For them to recover, they have to get young voters in their corner (or at least dramatically reduce the gap). You can't have another generation enter the voting sector as Democrats and expect to be competitive over the next 30 years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If that's true, then the GOP is sunk. It's tough to advocate small government while having your voters want big government.

You won't hear me argue that social conservatives are really proponents of small government. Heck, you won't often hear me argue that I'm a proponent of small vs big government, only what I consider an adequate & appropriate level of government.

Then again, I believe there are relatively few people who actually want minimal government, most just want it where they want it & not where they don't want it. If you get that (in theory) then it's neither big nor little, it's just like Baby Bear's porridge.

[RainMaker]

You won't hear me argue that social conservatives are really proponents of small government. Heck, you won't often hear me argue that I'm a proponent of small vs big government, only what I consider an adequate & appropriate level of government.

Then again, I believe there are relatively few people who actually want minimal government, most just want it where they want it & not where they don't want it. If you get that (in theory) then it's neither big nor little, it's just like Baby Bear's porridge.

If the GOP isn't small government, than what's the catch to bring people into the party? On social issues, they aren't going to win many national elections and are only going to see that gap widen as another generation hits voting age.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If the GOP isn't small government, than what's the catch to bring people into the party? On social issues, they aren't going to win many national elections and are only going to see that gap widen as another generation hits voting age.

Well the most obvious solution is to either do a better job of raising our children to have ... I'll try to stay neutral here and say "more compatible" values or else do everything we can to limit their participation in the voting process.

edit to add: Hmm, maybe we could legalize pot usage one day every couple of years ;)

[RainMaker]

Well the most obvious solution is to either do a better job of raising our children to have ... I'll try to stay neutral here and say "more compatible" values or else do everything we can to limit their participation in the voting process.

edit to add: Hmm, maybe we could legalize pot usage one day every couple of years ;)

But that's the thing, everyone has different views on how to raise their children. What you feel is right will be wrong for others.

I don't see the pendulum shifting back on social issues. Gays suddenly won't become scary figures, science considered blasphemy, and our laws based on a collection of stories written 2000 years ago. It's historically not happened in this country and I don't see that changing.

I understand taking a stance on your principles, but I just think that philosophy ends up shrinking the GOP and making them even less relevant than they are today. The party can't sit back and hope that we start regressing socially.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The party can't sit back and hope that we start regressing socially.

We've been regressing for decades, I'd love to see something that actually resembles progress for at least once in my lifetime.

[RainMaker]

We've been regressing for decades, I'd love to see something that actually resembles progress for at least once in my lifetime.

What have we regressed in?

It's not a knock or a setup. I just seriously don't see the nostalgia over how we were socially 50, 100, or 200 years ago.

[Tekneek]

Hmmm... What could he possibly mean? What has changed in our society? Interracial marriage... The end of segregation... Women's suffrage... End of slavery... Which one of those do we need to undo in order to have "progress" now?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hmmm... What could he possibly mean? What has changed in our society? Interracial marriage... The end of segregation... Women's suffrage... End of slavery... Which one of those do we need to undo in order to have "progress" now?

Actually none of those were what I had in mind. The answer is really more general than that, simply regressing toward accepting the unacceptable, which covers a whole lot more ground than any specific point.

But your mention of the word "suffrage" does raise a point that is almost completely overlooked and has been for as long as I can really remember. The Constitution was a framework designed to operate with less than 20% of the population to be eligible to vote. The conditions for various segments of the population have changed & the criteria would need to be adjusted but I really can't think of anything that would benefit the nation more than heading back toward that point, the number of people with adequate discernment ability to have that responsibility place upon them simply doesn't exist in our society and really never has. A system that uses age as the primary eligibility criteria is a significant factor in how the turtle ended up on the fence post.

Rest assured I won't be holding my breath for it to happen as the inmates already have enough sway over the asylum to prevent it from happening except by force (and I believe we lack the collective will for that) but if I happen to run into a genie interested in granting a wish ...

[sterlingice]

Hadn't heard the post turtle thing but thanks to the power of Google, now I have :)

SI

[lungs]

The conditions for various segments of the population have changed & the criteria would need to be adjusted but I really can't think of anything that would benefit the nation more than heading back toward that point, the number of people with adequate discernment ability to have that responsibility place upon them simply doesn't exist in our society and really never has.

Yep, we definitely need to go back to the time when only white landowners could vote.

edit: how silly of me to forget male
another edit: Just curious to what your voting eligibility criteria would be? Don't misconstrue my first line as what I think you think, just saying that's how it was in the past.
yet another edit: Wouldn't strict candidate eligibility be more feasible? Sort of the Iran style "democracy" where candidates need to be approved by the clerics. In this case, candidates would need to be approved by the Council of People That Think Like JIMGA.

I'd think that it would be a lot easier to screen a handful of candidates than millions of voters.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hadn't heard the post turtle thing but thanks to the power of Google, now I have :)

I actually picked it up elsewhere but found out from my wife that Neal Boortz used it earlier in the week as well.

[flere-imsaho]

Before the thread moves too much farther, I just wanted to highlight this as being one of the better politically oriented comments I've seen in a thread here in quite some times. It deserved more attention that it got initially as the pace of the thread picked up about the same time & headed onto another tangent.

"Factions, not Parties"

I agree with Foo's comment on this and it's interesting to see how this has happened over the past 20 years or so. I'd imagine that it's the influence of polling and better communication methods that have made so many Congresscritters cleave more to factions than support their party at every turn.

You saw this happen first in the House, where Reps with particularly strong districts banded with like-minded/like-supported Reps to push particular agendas. Arguably the first real "big" example of this was 1994, which was led by these kind of Reps and carried along a bunch of outliers in less-strong districts who eventually lost their seats (i.e. if you're in close to a 50/50 district, when Newt & the GOP loses steam, you don't have a lot to fall back upon and lose your seat).

For a while the Senate resisted this influx of reps with specific agendas, keeping its collegiate atmosphere, but turnover has caught up to it, and the Senate is now factionalized as well (though not nearly as bad as the House).

It's interesting to think that out of some of these factions will come third parties, but that's forgetting how many of the rules (local election rules to the rules of the House and Senate) favor, or are at least built for, a 2-party system. A lot of that would have to change first before these parties become really viable, nationally.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

While I hate to get this thread back on topic, this is fabulous stuff here. Arlen Specter now believes that legislation under Nixon would have saved Jack Kemp's life.

Specter Claims Kemp Would Be Alive if Congress Better Funded Medical Research - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/specter-claims-kemp-alive-congress-better-funded-medical-research/)

Specter added: "If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."

Also, some recent polling indicates that Spector would be in a dead heat with Tom Ridge if they ran against each other in the coming election despite the voter edge Democrats hold in Pennsylvania.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Yeah, I can't believe that no one is researching cancer cures.

[cartman]

Hadn't heard the post turtle thing but thanks to the power of Google, now I have :)

SI

That term is chalk.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Yeah, I can't believe that no one is researching cancer cures.

I hear there's a swine virus to deal with first.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I hear there's a swine virus to deal with first.

Are you serious in thinking this or anything remotely close to this? I can assure you that A LOT of money is spent every year on cancer research. Unfortunately, cancer is not an easy problem and its even unlikely that we will ever find a "cure for cancer," but rather have to independently discover cures for multiple types of cancer.

[RainMaker]

Also, some recent polling indicates that Spector would be in a dead heat with Tom Ridge if they ran against each other in the coming election despite the voter edge Democrats hold in Pennsylvania.
Can Ridge win the Republican primary being pro-choice? Ridge is pretty popular in Pennsylvania and would be their best chance at winning that seat. I'm one of those who felt McCain had a shot at the general election if he had picked Ridge as his running mate.

[cartman]

I'm sure we'd be farther along in the treatment of cancer if we'd spent the "War on Drugs" money on the "War on Cancer" instead.

[ISiddiqui]

Can Ridge win the Republican primary being pro-choice? Ridge is pretty popular in Pennsylvania and would be their best chance at winning that seat. I'm one of those who felt McCain had a shot at the general election if he had picked Ridge as his running mate.

Well Ridge won the Republican Governor primary in the 90s ;).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Are you serious in thinking this or anything remotely close to this? I can assure you that A LOT of money is spent every year on cancer research. Unfortunately, cancer is not an easy problem and its even unlikely that we will ever find a "cure for cancer," but rather have to independently discover cures for multiple types of cancer.

Your sarcasm meter is broken. Fix it. :D

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Your sarcasm meter is broken. Fix it. :D

Damn, I forgot that Specter's a Democrat now.

[DaddyTorgo]

This is pretty much a non-issue from where I stand. As everyone knows, Specter has been a RINO for some time.

I think that term really depends on whose Republican party you belong to. He might as well call you a RINO.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I think that term really depends on whose Republican party you belong to. He might as well call you a RINO.

I actually don't consider myself a Republican. I'm not registered to either party, which is much different than Specter.

[DaddyTorgo]

That's easy. Whoever grabs the Hispanic vote over the next 20 years is well on their way to building a huge coalition.

If there is a strong Hispanic governor from, say, a southwest or midwest state, who is a pretty strong fiscal conservative runs and becomes the face of the party while marginalizing the social conservatives- there's your new strong GOP. I think people can get behind fiscal conservatism- at least some of them- if you make it more nuanced. Rather than beating the "small government, small government, small government" drum constantly- pick and choose the battles. All those super libertarians who basically want to starve out government by cutting off tax funding- that's unrealistic pie-in-the-sky but they don't see it. But you could easily make some inroads with some "smarter government" and "more bang for your buck" packaging. It needs to be something less on the nose than "if you vote for us, we'll give you tax money back". People are tired of hearing that- they want their money back but the way it is phrased just sounds like a bribe.

It's not as if the social conservatives are going to find a home in the Democratic party so they will have to vote GOP. Similar to so many southern state Democrats up until the last 20 years who voted that way for nearly 100 despite having very dissimilar interests because they had been so ticked off by the Civil War and Reconstruction.

SI

problem is that the party elite would not let a strong hispanic governor get elected on a republican ticket. and certainly not put them up on a national ticket - not with having to answer to the far-right. at least not as the party stands now. it's going to take a die-off in the old-guard before that can happen.

[larrymcg421]

I actually don't consider myself a Republican.

Heh.

[DaddyTorgo]

But if you give up on the things that actually matter to you then what's the point in gaining control for the exception of those that are just power hungry?
Not necessarily arguing the point you're making, just pointing out why it really doesn't matter much if they do or don't.

What has to change for it to actually be meaningful is a reversal in the direction the voting public has taken. If that doesn't happen then the only difference is in pale shades of grey.

edit to add: By the end of the next election cycle you'll either see a reversal or you'll see the GOP split into it's relatively distinct factions over the following decade. Oddly enough, that might actually be the start of a 2+ party system that so many (here at least) seem to want. It wouldn't be a system that could take the White House outright any time in the forseeable future but might theoretically be enough to deny the D's a chance to get anything except the most lukewarm legislation through Congress. Still a long time in the making but I might actually call that one of the more likely scenarios.

late to this party, but let me just make sure i understand your point in the top part - you're saying that the only way for the GOP to turn things around is for people to essentially stop caring about gay marriage, abortion, etc as electoral issues? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Because i think we can both agree that isn't likely to happen - if anything those trends are likely set to accelerate.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Heh.

You disagree? As has been noted throughout the various political conversations, I'm extremely conservative when it comes to fiscal matters, but I side with Obama and the Democrats on many social issues. Now many of the political disagreements/discussions on this board are fiscal in nature, so I could see how you might believe that my negative reaction towards Obama is global in nature, but that's simply not the case.

[DaddyTorgo]

Gambling and pot are places to start but I think you're still going to run into a party schizophrenia issue with gay marriage. No one goes to the polls to vote single issue on gambling. A few on pot. But it's hard to reconcile that you're ok with the government staying out of people's casinos and head shops but not their bedrooms. And that's one issue where young voters differ pretty strongly from older voters- the younger you get when polling, the higher the numbers in favor of civil unions and gay marriage. It's also a much stronger pull as a single issue vote.

The spot the GOP is in is that it's one issue they just can't change on without completely alienating half the base.

SI

which is some really poor planning by the big dogs at the top of the party. tying half of your power base, and essentially all of your electability then, to a single issue, especially when it's an issue where there are such broad demographic differences (particularly in age, but also in race, region, etc) is political suicide

[kcchief19]

I am ashamed to say that John Cornyn is my Senator. He lacks the understanding of basic tenets of "checks and balances".

Power Line - John Cornyn: What the Specter Switch Means (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023450.php)
Just ... wow. My mind tells me that this is just political rhetoric written by some staffer designed to play to the lowest common intellect. But my gut tells me that whoever wrote this and approved this probably thinks that's exactly what checks-and-balances mean.

[Arles]

This Democratic ascendancy won't last forever, just like the GOP's win streak from 2000 to 2004 (electorally) didn't last either.

However, I'm having trouble seeing what the realistic path forward is for the GOP.

If I had to summarize the lessons learned by the Democrats by 2004 that they put into effect that led to 2006 and 2008 they'd be: recruit good and moderate candidates, speak to middle America, stop running from fights with the Republicans, find a good Presidential candidate for once.

What's the gameplan for the GOP (that will really work)?
The same gameplan that worked for the past 30 years - wait for everything to go down the crapper and then take over when the people have enough ill will towards the party in power. From 1990-1994, the economy was poor and there was a ton of angst against Washington. Bush lost to Clinton while the republicans built up their ranks in congress. Everything was fine from 1996 to 2001 and the main party usually won (with Clinton's scandals + Gore's campaign performance allowing W to slip in). Then, 9/11 hit and the republicans started losing seats and the financial crisis sealed for Obama.

There was no real policy matter that decided the 1992-1996 congress switch republican (despite Newt's "contract for America" claims) and while Bush's tax increase didn't help, Clinton won because the economy was bad. Same goes for Obama and the current democrats. The voting public is not nuanced/focused enough to say that a slight shift on trade policy combined with a harder stance on foreign oil made them switch from Republican to Democrat. They look at their jobs, their wallet, the media and see who is in power. If times are good, they stay. But, if times are bad in 4-6 years, you could have a pack of cymbal-toting monkeys running with an (R) and they will probably get elected.

To behave like there's some kind of "mental awakening" in the American public to love one side (or hate the other) is just as foolish as when the republicans did the same from 1996 to 2001. Prosperity equals popularity for incumbents and that will be the same in 1985, 1995, 2005 or 2045. All this other gobbledygook just passes the time between elections ;)

[sterlingice]

which is some really poor planning by the big dogs at the top of the party. tying half of your power base, and essentially all of your electability then, to a single issue, especially when it's an issue where there are such broad demographic differences (particularly in age, but also in race, region, etc) is political suicide

It looks like that coalition worked for almost 20 years, basically an entire generation. That's a long time in politics. Now it has to change. Purge the old leaders, give the party over to new blood, a new platform, and a new coalition. It's either that or the party dies and a new one takes its place.

SI

[sterlingice]

But, if times are bad in 4-6 years, you could have a pack of cymbal-toting monkeys running with an (R) and they will probably get elected.

bushorchimp.com ;)

{insert Democrat monkey comparison- don't have one readily available}

SI

[stevew]

Can Ridge win the Republican primary being pro-choice? Ridge is pretty popular in Pennsylvania and would be their best chance at winning that seat. I'm one of those who felt McCain had a shot at the general election if he had picked Ridge as his running mate.

It's not worth party resources to heavily back a canidate vs Specter in PA. Ridge probably wouldn't beat Toomey anyways, his position on abortion is too liberal.

Plus I think you still get some value out of Specter, even if he's in the opposing party.

[RainMaker]

The same gameplan that worked for the past 30 years - wait for everything to go down the crapper and then take over when the people have enough ill will towards the party in power. From 1990-1994, the economy was poor and there was a ton of angst against Washington. Bush lost to Clinton while the republicans built up their ranks in congress. Everything was fine from 1996 to 2001 and the main party usually won (with Clinton's scandals + Gore's campaign performance allowing W to slip in). Then, 9/11 hit and the republicans started losing seats and the financial crisis sealed for Obama.

There was no real policy matter that decided the 1992-1996 congress switch republican (despite Newt's "contract for America" claims) and while Bush's tax increase didn't help, Clinton won because the economy was bad. Same goes for Obama and the current democrats. The voting public is not nuanced/focused enough to say that a slight shift on trade policy combined with a harder stance on foreign oil made them switch from Republican to Democrat. They look at their jobs, their wallet, the media and see who is in power. If times are good, they stay. But, if times are bad in 4-6 years, you could have a pack of cymbal-toting monkeys running with an (R) and they will probably get elected.

To behave like there's some kind of "mental awakening" in the American public to love one side (or hate the other) is just as foolish as when the republicans did the same from 1996 to 2001. Prosperity equals popularity for incumbents and that will be the same in 1985, 1995, 2005 or 2045. All this other gobbledygook just passes the time between elections ;)

I do agree with you for the most part. Democrats didn't magically become better politicians. The shift was essentially the Republicans fucking everything up and people deciding they'll vote anyone but Republican in the election.

But I do disagree with the last part. I wouldn't call it a "mental awakening", but it's hard to deny that socially we've changed a lot. Two demographics (blacks and hispanics) are growing tremendously. Do you really see them voting Republican if things go bad? We have a young generation that doesn't have a problem with gay people. Do you see them voting Republican anytime soon? And ultimately a society that is becoming less and less religious.

[JonInMiddleGA]

late to this party, but let me just make sure i understand your point in the top part - you're saying that the only way for the GOP to turn things around is for people to essentially stop caring about gay marriage, abortion, etc as electoral issues? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Because i think we can both agree that isn't likely to happen - if anything those trends are likely set to accelerate.

Lemme see here, have to go back at look at the original context to refresh my memory.

You had said
The demographics are just heavily against them until they open up the party more.

Then I said the part you're asking about

I'm not sure what you're asking me now exactly to be honest. Your contention was that changing demographics worked against them & they would have to "open up the party more" in order to be successful/more competitive/whatever.

I basically said that if you abandon the things that matter most then what's the difference whether you win or lose? Either the GOP stands relatively pat on it's positions or it isn't the same entity that we're talking about today. If it abandons those positions to bring in new voters then it loses a large chunk of what it has now, becoming effectively a different party even if the name remains the same.

We may have a small point of disagreement about what's likely to happen (I'm not entirely sure where you are on this), I believe a split is actually more likely than either a significant shift in policy or a shift in demographic voting patterns, barring an unexpected quick reversal of election results. On the other hand we agree that the social issues aren't likely to go away for a large number of voters.

Part of the current consistent GOP voters will believe they lose because the slate was too conservative -- socially, fiscally, or both -- another part will believe it's because they weren't conservative enough. Either way somebody ends up unhappy enough to be ready to break away. Sort of goes back to that "faction" vs "party" point made earlier in the thread.

Neither of the GOP philosophical blocs can win a national election without the other right now but if they aren't winning them with each other either then the compromise becomes less satisfying and each becomes more likely to at least lose with more of their values intact instead of losing with them compromised.

And anybody who thinks the party won't split just isn't paying attention. What was the study released over the weekend, that 36% of Georgia Republicans responded favorably to the idea of secession, one out of five Georgia voters in total. We're ready to leave the Union entirely, leaving a party (that most of us haven't been associated with all that long anyway) isn't really an issue at all. We left the D's when they abandoned us, if the R's abandon us we'll leave them as well.

[lungs]

What was the study released over the weekend, that 36% of Georgia Republicans responded favorably to the idea of secession, one out of five Georgia voters in total.

And I'd hate for us northerners to make the same mistake a second time of bringing you all back into the Union.

Maybe another General Sherman march through the south would be in order, but for god's sake, don't let them back in the Union.

[RainMaker]

And anybody who thinks the party won't split just isn't paying attention. What was the study released over the weekend, that 36% of Georgia Republicans responded favorably to the idea of secession, one out of five Georgia voters in total. We're ready to leave the Union entirely, leaving a party (that most of us haven't been associated with all that long anyway) isn't really an issue at all. We left the D's when they abandoned us, if the R's abandon us we'll leave them as well.

That's still an extremely small percent of the population. Around 20% of Georgians. Much less if you polled Republicans outside that region.

I'm not knocking it as I think more parties and voice would be nice. But splitting up nationally means you guys maybe get 10% of the votes nationally and are essentially irrelevant. Although I guess you would caucus with the Republicans like Bernie Sanders does.

[Tekneek]

How quickly they would change their mind once they realize they lost a benefit they would love to have, though... The ultimate combination of ignorance and arrogance.

Texas was loving the idea of joking about leaving the Union and such, but now they are demanding "their share" of the "national stockpile" of swine flu treatment. Why not just leave the damn USA and find your own stockpile, bitches?

[RainMaker]

Texas was loving the idea of joking about leaving the Union and such, but now they are demanding "their share" of the "national stockpile" of swine flu treatment. Why not just leave the damn USA and find your own stockpile, bitches?

I did find that a little funny. Perry goes on his rants about secession and how the federal government is too big. Swine flu hits and he's begging the socialist CDC to send over their socialized medicine.

[flere-imsaho]

I wonder if we could argue that the Democratic Party has already had its "split" that JiMGA is talking about - those who've left the party for the Greens/Nader. Maybe the corresponding "split" in the GOP are the hard-core social conservatives leaving for a similar movement. What are the numbers there, do you think?

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's still an extremely small percent of the population. Around 20% of Georgians. Much less if you polled Republicans outside that region.

You'd get similar numbers in most of the Southern states, give or take, as well as some of the low population Western states (it was Montana I believe who is working on the latest salvo exerting state sovereignty). And Texans have never really been completely comfortable with the arrangement anyway.

My point about the secession numbers wasn't really about the viability of that, but rather just to illustrate the point that leaving a political party really isn't that big a deal for a lot of people, and especially not in many of the current GOP states.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And I'd hate for us northerners to make the same mistake a second time of bringing you all back into the Union.

I tend to agree. If it weren't for that miserable war mongering bastard Lincoln, or if someone had only shot his worthless ass sooner, both nations would be collectively happier today.

[Arles]

I do agree with you for the most part. Democrats didn't magically become better politicians. The shift was essentially the Republicans fucking everything up and people deciding they'll vote anyone but Republican in the election.

But I do disagree with the last part. I wouldn't call it a "mental awakening", but it's hard to deny that socially we've changed a lot.
We changed a lot in the 1960s, 70s and 80s as well. Democrats in the 1960s were more like Republicans in the 1990s. Things will adjust on both sides. Right now we are tending more to a "libertarian" view on things like gay marriage and abortion and more variety in how we express our religious beliefs. But, I don't see that as only an issue for republicans. There are certain parts of the republican party that will face some battles, but ultimately the political parties are about survival and a balance will be reached. But, again, don't underestimate the aspect of being the majority. Often, at the end of a run at the majority, some changes need to be made (hence why you may now not be the majority).

Two demographics (blacks and hispanics) are growing tremendously. Do you really see them voting Republican if things go bad?
I think both groups are going to go through a bit of a political transformation. African Americans and Hispanics have both seen increased prosperity through the past decade and I don't see their voting blocks continuing. The African American-gay marriage rift in the democratic party is something that will work itself out and I'm not sure what will happen there.

In the end, both parties will position themselves to survive (as in Steele leading the party now) and the republicans will wait all these issues out until things go south. Then, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and others will swoop in to start putting blame on the current people in power and more republicans will end up in office.

It may not be the prettiest thought, but it's probably what's going to happen in the next 4-6 years.

[flere-imsaho]

My point about the secession numbers wasn't really about the viability of that, but rather just to illustrate the point that leaving a political party really isn't that big a deal for a lot of people, and especially not in many of the current GOP states.

Given most people's natural gravatation towards apathy, however, it's one thing to say you'd secede from the Union or leave your party, and another to actually do it. I'd imagine a lot of people will come back to the GOP once Obama's approval ratings go down.

I tend to agree. If it weren't for that miserable war mongering bastard Lincoln, or if someone had only shot his worthless ass sooner, both nations would be collectively happier today.

Yeah, the South would be like Mexico, only without the rich cultural heritage. :p

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'd imagine a lot of people will come back to the GOP once Obama's approval ratings go down.

That might be true IF the GOP was the natural home of a lot of the people we're talking about. But it isn't, at least not in the South. If the GOP shifts away from what appealed, those folks don't have to move away, the party will be doing the moving & we'll find (or make) a new home just as we did when the Dems swung further & further to the left.


Yeah, the South would be like Mexico, only without the rich cultural heritage. :p

Better that than what we've become/are becoming. Hell, better nearly anything than that.

[flere-imsaho]

While it's true that both parties have advanced on a number of social issues in the past few decades, those who have held the reins of power in the GOP for the past 10-15 years are beholden very much to the social conservative wing of the party, and the views of this wing have not advanced with the views of the national population at large. I think that's where the demographic argument needs to be considered.

I take the point that at intervals the populace gets tired of the same old people (Reagan/Bush to Clinton, Clinton to Bush, House Dems to "Republican Revolution"), but in every case the other party has to offer a tent in which the majority of the electorate can fit. Now clearly the last three Presidents downplayed their parties' fringes to win their initial election, and 1994 wasn't really a "radical" message, but you'd have to say now that the strongest public figures in the GOP firmament are really some of their more divisive ones as well. And there's a strong pipeline for more. It's like the string of uninspiring wonks on the Democratic bench that kept them from the Presidency for so long (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale).

In today's GOP the social conservatives control the majority of the message, apparently a lot of the money, and clearly almost all of the GOTV operation. That hasn't been the case for Democratic left-wing fringe groups for ages.

I wonder what it will take for that message to moderate enough to compete again. Or, maybe like Arles is suggesting, people will just ignore it to vote for the "other guy".

And the thing is that I assume that the balance will shift the other way. It always does. I'm just trying to speculate on how it happens.

[flere-imsaho]

That might be true IF the GOP was the natural home of a lot of the people we're talking about. But it isn't, at least not in the South. If the GOP shifts away from what appealed, those folks don't have to move away, the party will be doing the moving & we'll find (or make) a new home just as we did when the Dems swung further & further to the left.

I hear you. As I posted previously, the South(East) certainly does have a precedent of switching out of one party, and into a third, even if they got back to the "other" party eventually.

Maybe that's how the third party finally comes about. Enough social conservatism in the SE plus with a few outposts, combined with fiscal conservatives taking back the GOP and the Democrats losing ground due to hubris, and you've got a 3-way split.

[kcchief19]

And anybody who thinks the party won't split just isn't paying attention. What was the study released over the weekend, that 36% of Georgia Republicans responded favorably to the idea of secession, one out of five Georgia voters in total. We're ready to leave the Union entirely, leaving a party (that most of us haven't been associated with all that long anyway) isn't really an issue at all. We left the D's when they abandoned us, if the R's abandon us we'll leave them as well.
But was this 36% ready to leave the union six months ago? Anyone talking about secession to me just sounds just like the reaction of not getting the girl. My gut tells me that a year ago this 36% wasn't ready to leave the U.S. but they would have taken California seceding gladly. My guess is that they may "hate" America now but five years ago would have told you that anyone who didn't think like them was unamerican.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I hear you. As I posted previously, the South(East) certainly does have a precedent of switching out of one party, and into a third, even if they got back to the "other" party eventually.

Maybe that's how the third party finally comes about. Enough social conservatism in the SE plus with a few outposts, combined with fiscal conservatives taking back the GOP and the Democrats losing ground due to hubris, and you've got a 3-way split.

Funny, but I feel as though I've heard that in the thread somewhere before ;)

[flere-imsaho]

Funny, but I feel as though I've heard that in the thread somewhere before ;)

Well, I am re-reading Page 4. :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

But was this 36% ready to leave the union six months ago? Anyone talking about secession to me just sounds just like the reaction of not getting the girl. My gut tells me that a year ago this 36% wasn't ready to leave the U.S. but they would have taken California seceding gladly. My guess is that they may "hate" America now but five years ago would have told you that anyone who didn't think like them was unamerican.

I might not argue that point, other than to say that I think it may have taken November for a lot of people to realize just how far we've slipped, a wake up call or reality check if you will. I pretty much already figured it out but I don't know that a lot of people had.

The point about removing California is pretty relevant I think. We simply want separation from it (really more accurately what you used it to represent). Removing it was preferrable but failing that then whatever it takes is preferable to continued sufferance of it (again here, I think California is just easy shorthand, more symbolic than specific).

[RainMaker]

We changed a lot in the 1960s, 70s and 80s as well. Democrats in the 1960s were more like Republicans in the 1990s. Things will adjust on both sides. Right now we are tending more to a "libertarian" view on things like gay marriage and abortion and more variety in how we express our religious beliefs. But, I don't see that as only an issue for republicans. There are certain parts of the republican party that will face some battles, but ultimately the political parties are about survival and a balance will be reached. But, again, don't underestimate the aspect of being the majority. Often, at the end of a run at the majority, some changes need to be made (hence why you may now not be the majority).
I think that's the point though. The party will have to change to get back those votes just as much as the Democrats will have to screw up. If the GOP doesn't change any of their stances on social issues, there is no chance atheists, blacks, hispanics, or homosexuals vote for them. Simply put, a lot of these people are not going to vote against their best interests.

I think both groups are going to go through a bit of a political transformation. African Americans and Hispanics have both seen increased prosperity through the past decade and I don't see their voting blocks continuing. The African American-gay marriage rift in the democratic party is something that will work itself out and I'm not sure what will happen there.
They have seen increased prosperity, but we're finding that isn't going to help with the vote. The rich voted in favor of Obama in this last election. The GOP no longer has that demographic in their pocket. In fact, blacks are voting even more in favor of Democrats.

The biggest problem facing the GOP and minorities is the vague hint of racism in the party still. The confederate flag waving group. That fringe element that things Obama is a Muslim and will post signs on their lawn about not voting for a n***er. They recently had party leaders sending out CDs with a song called Barack the Magic Negro on it. Like it or not, this is an element of the base of the Republican Party and it's still going to be very difficult to get the hispanic and black vote.

In the end, both parties will position themselves to survive (as in Steele leading the party now) and the republicans will wait all these issues out until things go south. Then, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and others will swoop in to start putting blame on the current people in power and more republicans will end up in office.

I think that era is over. Rush is hated and he's seen negatively by most of the population. He'll always have his group of listeners who will do as he says and get riled up on whatever he tells them to. But guys like Rush and Hannity don't carry over into mainstream. They don't resonate with suburban housewives.

I don't think it's as easy as saying people will get frustrated and change their vote. That can happen if the other party is open and accepting of you into it. But the hardcore conservatives have made it clear that they don't want any diversity in their party.

[Glengoyne]

While it's true that both parties have advanced on a number of social issues in the past few decades, those who have held the reins of power in the GOP for the past 10-15 years are beholden very much to the social conservative wing of the party, and the views of this wing have not advanced with the views of the national population at large. I think that's where the demographic argument needs to be considered.


My take is that 15 years ago the GOP took control to with a very moderate anti corruption agenda. You know that evil bastard Newt Gingrich. Once Newt was gone and the truly evil Tom Delay came to power as lord of the House, that was when the GOP started the slide toward the 2006 elections. It didn't take Delay all that long to undo all of the reforms Newt put into place.

So, while I see where you're coming from. I often characterize myself as a member of the religious right that believes the republican party needs to run from others of my ilk at top speed.

Christine Todd Whitman...now she's my kind of Republican. Oh same for Arlen Specter.

[JonInMiddleGA]

They don't resonate with suburban housewives.


Those suburban housewives tend to be significantly more represented with Hannity than any other talk host. Whole different ballgame than Rush. It's not a genre that ever pulls big numbers with women don't get me wrong, but within the genre Hannity gets over about as well as anyone doing that bit ever has.

[Arles]

I think that's the point though. The party will have to change to get back those votes just as much as the Democrats will have to screw up. If the GOP doesn't change any of their stances on social issues, there is no chance atheists, blacks, hispanics, or homosexuals vote for them. Simply put, a lot of these people are not going to vote against their best interests.
I don't buy it. If the country goes south in the next 4 years, republicans will simply run on the economy and no one will care about a nuanced stance on "civil unions" for homosexuals or how accepting of pro-choice voters "the base" is. People make way too much about social issues. If this were the case, we would have been pro choice in 1992, pro life in 1994, pro choice again in 1996, pro life in 2000, pro choice in 2002, pro life in 2004 and pro choice in 2008. You can believe that, or believe in each case that when times were good - the party in power was fine. Went times went south, the party in power lost. That's the consistent message from the voters.

They have seen increased prosperity, but we're finding that isn't going to help with the vote. The rich voted in favor of Obama in this last election. The GOP no longer has that demographic in their pocket. In fact, blacks are voting even more in favor of Democrats.
It was the first black president - it's not a stretch to see a higher black turnout. I'm sure Obama will get a vast majority of the black vote in 2012. But what happens after that? Are we sure this is a permanent thing?

The biggest problem facing the GOP and minorities is the vague hint of racism in the party still.
The GOP's biggest problem was a black nominee from the other party. The republicans could have run Jesus Christ himself as a nominee and got no more than 10% of the black vote against Obama.

Like it or not, this is an element of the base of the Republican Party and it's still going to be very difficult to get the hispanic and black vote.
I think the poor minority vote is always going to be tough for the GOP as a stable of middle and lower class is how terrible and heartless republicans are. It was even worse in the 1980s. My point is that a lot of the "2000s" minorities are not poor or poorly educated. They will be making informed decisions based on their own well beings and I think (over time) some of that will cause an erosion in the "democratic block" we have seen (esp with Hispanics).

In the end, though, most people vote with their wallet and that will happen again in 2010, 2012 and beyond.

I think that era is over. Rush is hated and he's seen negatively by most of the population. He'll always have his group of listeners who will do as he says and get riled up on whatever he tells them to. But guys like Rush and Hannity don't carry over into mainstream. They don't resonate with suburban housewives.
They never did. Rush's approval rating has fluctuated between 15 and 30% his entire career. It doesn't change the fact that he is "New York Times" for conservative bloggers/writers and a lot of their material comes from him. He's certainly not going anywhere any time soon and if things go south, people will want a "quick fix" for blame and the right will be ready to hand over the current administration and congress. Pelosi's approval rating is no better than Rush's.

I don't think it's as easy as saying people will get frustrated and change their vote. That can happen if the other party is open and accepting of you into it.
This is what people would like to think, but history doesn't support it. If you are a moderate who voted for Obama and this country is struggling in 2012, there's a good chance you will vote for a somewhat attractive republican candidate. Even if that candidate double-talks civil union/gay marriage and is pro life, the moderates will vote for them because they are frustrated with job/financial uncertainty and desperate for new answers. Whether the republican base is "more understanding" to gay marriage the next four years is irrelevant.

The reality is that Republicans have been branded as heartless, gun-toting, bible freaks who want to attack everyone and starve the homeless for 20 years. Democrats have been painted as bleeding heart, tax-and-spend, teach sex ed to infant socialists over the same time. At the end of the day, many (myself included) have voted both parties based primarily on the state of the country and I don't see this process changing now - just like I didn't see it changing when I voted democrat in 1996/1998 and was told by my republican friends that the democratic party was done for.

[RainMaker]

Those suburban housewives tend to be significantly more represented with Hannity than any other talk host. Whole different ballgame than Rush. It's not a genre that ever pulls big numbers with women don't get me wrong, but within the genre Hannity gets over about as well as anyone doing that bit ever has.

Hannity's audience is almost as heavily male as Limbaughs. And if they are more represented, it's not carrying over to the polls. The GOP is getting slaughtered by women come election time.

[RainMaker]

I don't buy it. If the country goes south in the next 4 years, republicans will simply run on the economy and no one will care about a nuanced stance on "civil unions" for homosexuals or how accepting of pro-choice voters "the base" is. People make way too much about social issues. If this were the case, we would have been pro choice in 1992, pro life in 1994, pro choice again in 1996, pro life in 2000, pro choice in 2002, pro life in 2004 and pro choice in 2008. You can believe that, or believe in each case that when times were good - the party in power was fine. Went times went south, the party in power lost. That's the consistent message from the voters.
Social issues do matter. Maybe not a ton, but they have an effect. If your theory was correct that it's all based on how well the economy runs, the segregationist parties from the 40's and 50's would still be around today. They would have never needed to change their stance.

I'm a fiscal conservative but have voted Democrat lately because of social issues. I don't want creationism taught in schools, funding cut for important scientific research, and discrimination against people for things they can't control. I certainly weigh the pros and cons, but I think it's silly to assume that social issues don't play some roles in elections.

It was the first black president - it's not a stretch to see a higher black turnout. I'm sure Obama will get a vast majority of the black vote in 2012. But what happens after that? Are we sure this is a permanent thing?
Well it's been permanent since Kennedy. Going back to exit polls over the last 30 years, the GOP hasn't gotten even 20% of the black vote. They got 5% in the last election. Millions of black voters registered as Democrats this election. Even if they lose some of that margin in future elections, their demographic is growing faster than others and will still be a major advantage for Democrats. The same can be said for Hispanics.

The GOP's biggest problem was a black nominee from the other party. The republicans could have run Jesus Christ himself as a nominee and got no more than 10% of the black vote against Obama.
Obama got a higher percentage of the white vote than Kerry, Gore, and Clinton. Kerry got nearly 90% of the black vote in 2004. This isnt' an Obama is black thing, it's a blacks don't vote for the GOP thing.


I think the poor minority vote is always going to be tough for the GOP as a stable of middle and lower class is how terrible and heartless republicans are. It was even worse in the 1980s. My point is that a lot of the "2000s" minorities are not poor or poorly educated. They will be making informed decisions based on their own well beings and I think (over time) some of that will cause an erosion in the "democratic block" we have seen (esp with Hispanics).
They can cut into those minorities, but as long as those minorities are growing faster than the white vote, it's not going to help the GOP.

They never did. Rush's approval rating has fluctuated between 15 and 30% his entire career. It doesn't change the fact that he is "New York Times" for conservative bloggers/writers and a lot of their material comes from him. He's certainly not going anywhere any time soon and if things go south, people will want a "quick fix" for blame and the right will be ready to hand over the current administration and congress. Pelosi's approval rating is no better than Rush's.
I don't disagree with that. I still think he's a non-factor, just as Michael Moore and others are for the Democrats. A Rush listener is going to vote Republican. All he's doing is giving a daily pep rally. But some of his negative comments that get mainstream media attention hurt the GOP. I'm convinced the GOP lost the Senate in 2006 thanks to his Michael J. Fox comments that gave the Missouri Senate seat to the Democrats in the final days.

This is what people would like to think, but history doesn't support it. If you are a moderate who voted for Obama and this country is struggling in 2012, there's a good chance you will vote for a somewhat attractive republican candidate. Even if that candidate double-talks civil union/gay marriage and is pro life, the moderates will vote for them because they are frustrated with job/financial uncertainty and desperate for new answers. Whether the republican base is "more understanding" to gay marriage the next four years is irrelevant.
I agree. The problem is can an attractive moderate Republican get through the primaries? I don't care where the economy is, Sarah Palin isn't beating anyone in 2012. The problem with the GOP is that the candidates that have the best shot at winning general elections are the ones their base hate the most.

[Arles]

I can't see Palin getting the nomination (I certainly wouldn't vote for her, and I was initially OK with her as VP). After the dust settled, it seemed Palin was a hail mary from McCain to get some of the disgruntled Hillary voters after she was passed over. I can't see the current GOP really pushing for her in a main election, but nothing the current GOP does would surprise me at this point.

The democrats had a similar opportunity in 2004 to what the republicans will have down the road (whether it's 12 or 16 - who knows). They blew it by nominating Kerry. I'm guessing the republicans will try and have a more likable candidate in the next contested election and, if they do, that person will probably win. If they go for a 70-year old man again, it will be very tough.

[RainMaker]

We have the candidate for the secessionist party in Georgia.

http://wonkette.com/408277/secessionist-mule-raping-georgia-governor-candidate-would-also-kill-own-son-for-liberty

[flere-imsaho]

I never realized that Arles was James Carville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid). :D

I agree. The problem is can an attractive moderate Republican get through the primaries?

I think that's a key point. Social conservatives had a significant influence in the past two contested GOP primaries. Anyway, either speculating side could be right. It might be that the electorate ignores the fringes of either party and votes based on their weariness of one party over the other. It might be that the social conservatives' death grip on the GOP primary system will give the GOP a handicap the Democrats always had courtesy of their fractured and fractious support. It'll take a few more elections to find out.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that you need a person in the GOP who can generate support as a moderate without having to rely on the Christian right. That would mean a senator from a blue or purple state with open primaries (so they can win primaries with cross-over support) or a governor. Or someone who does not currently hold elected office. Basically, someone who can survive and raise money and get name recognition without having to go back to the Christian right every 2,4, or 6 years and suck up to them (and take positions that will doom them in a general). That person might be who can lead the GOP out of the wilderness.

Or, to shortcut the process, take someone that can generate and inspire the libertarian passion that Ron Paul did and combine it with someone who has the organizational ability of then-candidate Obama. And that person could remake the GOP in short order.

[Arles]

Let's also not forget the whole "open primaries" aspect. I could see a lot of moderates/independents voting for the republican candidate and taking some bite out of the christian right vote (esp if it's split over a couple candidates already). That's basically what got McCain through the primaries. I'm not so sure you need to be completely in bed with the religious right to win a GOP primary. If that was the case, Huckabee would have won the nomination in a landslide in 2008.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Ouch. Not exactly rolling out the red carpet for Sen. Specter.....

New Democrat Specter Loses Committee Seniority - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/06/new-democrat-specter-loses-commitee-seniority/)

[cartman]

Ouch. Not exactly rolling out the red carpet for Sen. Specter.....

New Democrat Specter Loses Committee Seniority - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/06/new-democrat-specter-loses-commitee-seniority/)

Yeah, this was a totally one-sided manuver. :rolleyes:

FTFA:
The Senate passed a resolution Tuesday night that made him the most junior Democrat on the committees on which he serves. The resolution was passed after an agreement was reached between leadership in both parties and Specter

I have a feeling that his seniority status will change if he wins re-election.

[ISiddiqui]

The problem is that one of Specter's appeals for re-election is that he has so much senority and can get money back to the state, etc. If there is a doubt he'll get his senority status changed after the election, that really hurts him in the Dem primary as well as general election.

[Arles]

I'm sure Specter was eager to accept the demotion and very happy with the "agreement" between himself and the democrats. This move has been about political survival from the start and this is just another blow to the gut that Specter was forced to absorb to stay on the hill. It's not like he had a lot of leverage with the democrats on this. But to act as if Specter had any say in this demotion (or treat like some kind of negociated agreement) is silly.

[cartman]

This editorial from WaPo seems to back up my claim:

Senate Democrats Deny Specter Committee Seniority - Capitol Briefing (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/senate_democrats_deny_specter.html?hpid=topnews)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm sure Specter was eager to accept the demotion and very happy with the "agreement" between himself and the democrats. This move has been about political survival from the start and this is just another blow to the gut that Specter was forced to absorb to stay on the hill. It's not like he had a lot of leverage with the democrats on this. But to act as if Specter had any say in this demotion (or treat like some kind of negociated agreement) is silly.

:+1:

[Arles]

I fail to see how it supports your claim. This happens last Tuesday during the move:
Tonight's committee resolution, quickly read on the Senate floor by Reid himself, contradicts Specter's assertion last Tuesday when he publicly announced his move from the Republican side of the aisle. He told reporters that he retained his seniority both in the overall chamber and in the committees on which he serves. Specter said that becoming chairman of the Appropriations Committee was a personal goal of his, one that would be within reach if he were granted his seniority on the panel and placed as the third-most senior Democrat there.

Then, after meeting with democrats he finds that he loses his seniority and is forced to say he "mispoke" earlier. This is no different than a guy asking for a loan from the mob and getting quoted at 20% interest. Then, when he takes the loan out, the mob boss says the juice is now 30%. Just because he's desperate enough to accept the new terms does not mean the agreement wasn't completely one-sided (the notion you took issue with above).

Specter got completely strong armed by the democrats and lost his seniority. There's nothing he could do about it as he had already burned his bridge with republicans and was going to lose with an (R) by his name, so he was forced to accept the "new agreement". The democrats were well within their rights to do this as Specter had no cards to play, but to say this was some kind of mutual agreement is being extremely disingenuous.

[ISiddiqui]

Yep, Specter got hosed here. All I heard was he'd get the same seniority on this... nope, guess not.

[JPhillips]

I fail to see how it supports your claim. This happens last Tuesday during the move:


Then, after meeting with democrats he finds that he loses his seniority and is forced to say he "mispoke" earlier. This is no different than a guy asking for a loan from the mob and getting quoted at 20% interest. Then, when he takes the loan out, the mob boss says the juice is now 30%. Just because he's desperate enough to accept the new terms does not mean the agreement wasn't completely one-sided (the notion you took issue with above).

Specter got completely strong armed by the democrats and lost his seniority. There's nothing he could do about it as he had already burned his bridge with republicans and was going to lose with an (R) by his name, so he was forced to accept the "new agreement". The democrats were well within their rights to do this as Specter had no cards to play, but to say this was some kind of mutual agreement is being extremely disingenuous.

Not exactly. To stay within your analogy it's more like:

Specter, who had long been an enemy of the Sicilian mob, found out the Jewish mafia had put a hit out on him, so he went to the Godfather of the Sicilians and asked for protection. The Godfather, without checking with any of his capos agreed. Specter spent the next week saying he wasn't loyal to the Sicilians, hoped the Jewish mafia defeated the Sicilians, and was against all the business propositions under discussion by the Sicilians.

When it cam time for the capos to decide how much of their business they would give Specter, they agreed that Specter couldn't be trusted and would have to prove his loyalty to the Sicilians before he'd get a big share of the pie. Specter, now having angered both the Jewish mafia and the Sicilian mafia, figured it was a good time to stop acting like a douche and pretend he liked the outcome.

[Big Fo]

Spector had to clarify his feelings after making this supposed joke in an interview with New York Times Magazine.

Q: With your departure from the Republican Party, there are no more Jewish Republicans in the Senate. Do you care about that?


A: I sure do. There's still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner.

He later said when asked by someone from CQ Politics:

“In the swirl of moving from one caucus to another, I have to get used to my new teammates,” he said. “I’m ordinarily pretty correct in what I say. I’ve made a career of being precise. I conclusively misspoke.”

Asked who he’s backing now in elections, Specter said, “I’m looking for more Democratic members. Nothing personal.”

And before someone else does some variation of it: spector fits in great he's already flip-flopping like grand messiah obama lol

[cartman]

I fail to see how it supports your claim. This happens last Tuesday during the move:


Then, after meeting with democrats he finds that he loses his seniority and is forced to say he "mispoke" earlier. This is no different than a guy asking for a loan from the mob and getting quoted at 20% interest. Then, when he takes the loan out, the mob boss says the juice is now 30%. Just because he's desperate enough to accept the new terms does not mean the agreement wasn't completely one-sided (the notion you took issue with above).

Specter got completely strong armed by the democrats and lost his seniority. There's nothing he could do about it as he had already burned his bridge with republicans and was going to lose with an (R) by his name, so he was forced to accept the "new agreement". The democrats were well within their rights to do this as Specter had no cards to play, but to say this was some kind of mutual agreement is being extremely disingenuous.

He was able to retain membership on every committee he was on as a Republican. If the Democrats were simply looking to screw him over, they could have kicked him off several of the powerful committees he was on in addition to the loss in seniority. In addition, instead of the Republicans simply replacing Specter's spot on the committees, they just moved Specter from R to D, giving the Democrats a majority of the seats on those committees, at least until the midterms. Who knows what negotiations went on behind the scenes to get that done, but I'm sure Specter had to have some input into it.

And, as I speculated, the article also said that his seniority status would be up for review after the midterms, if he was re-elected.

I'm in no way saying that this was a slam dunk win for Specter and he orchestrated the whole thing to work out this way. I'm saying that it wasn't a complete slap in the face either. He still is a members of several very powerful committees, and there is a chance that his junior seniority status could change if he wins re-election.

[Arles]

The reality is that democrats put the screws to him because they don't want to embrace him, have him lose re-election and look like failures. They also want to make sure he votes the "party line" and smacking him down to junior senator with a carrot of being a senior guy after he runs for re-election is a great way to ensure he doesn't rock the boat too much as a dem.

Quite honestly, I'm glad they are treating Specter like this as it will completely dissuade any other republican from leaving and, to be honest, the fact the move is primarily for Specter's political survival makes me less willing to worry about his well being. All that said, I'll repeat what I posted earlier - to act like Specter had any say in this process (once he decided to switch) is completely disingenuous. Specter's basically been Kevin Bacon in Animal House:

http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsB/766-13443.gif
Thank you sir, may I have another! :D

[cartman]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I think it is just as disingenuous to say that they had zero conversations about his roles on Senate committees as part of the Democratic caucus.

[CamEdwards]

This Politico article seems to suggest Specter is less than happy about the arrangement.

Meltdown: Specter stands alone
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22180.html)

[Arles]

I think it is just as disingenuous to say that they had zero conversations about his roles on Senate committees as part of the Democratic caucus.
Oh, they had conversations. The democrats told him that he would be dropped down to a junior senator level. At which point, to quote Kevin Bacon, Specter said "Thank you sir, may I have another" :cool:

[Arles]

This Politico article seems to suggest Specter is less than happy about the arrangement.

Meltdown: Specter stands alone
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22180.html)
DAYUM, that is brutal for Specter. Well, as I said earlier in the thread, this will act an example for the type of "support" republicans will get from the democrats if they switch parties in hopes of staying capital hill longer. Needless to say, I don't think we'll see any additional switches anytime soon.

[Tekneek]

That is unreal. How can you vote to change somebody's tenure like that? Isn't that defying reality? Sorta like the NFL owners getting together and voting that a particular player is a rookie again? I don't understand how something like that could be subject to a vote. We all know how long he has been in the Senate.

[Big Fo]

PA primary voters might as well get nominate a proper Democrat with Spector losing his tenure. If he wins the primary this will hurt him in the election.

[flere-imsaho]

Oh, they had conversations. The democrats told him that he would be dropped down to a junior senator level. At which point, to quote Kevin Bacon, Specter said "Thank you sir, may I have another" :cool:

This is Harry Reid we're talking about - perhaps the least tactically astute Senate Majority Leader ever. It's altogether possible that Reid gave Specter the impression he could keep his seniority, and then backtracked on this when senior Democrats found out and got angry about it.

I'm only half-kidding.

[Arles]

flere, I think you are dead on with that assessment. The more I watch this, the more I think the entire senate is a joke right now.

[flere-imsaho]

And I actually wrote that before reading the Politico article Cam linked. If you read that article it becomes even more clear how many Democratic senators were in the dark about the details surrounding this.

[Grammaticus]

“I think the reality is between now and then is — is he on the team or not?” a senior Democratic aide said Wednesday. “If he’s instrumental in getting health care done, I imagine his position in the caucus after 2010 will be substantially strengthened.”



Ha ha, Dance Monkey Dance!

[RainMaker]

I don't think it's surprising. They'll hold this and the Democratic primary over his head to ensure he votes with them on health care and supreme court justices. The Dems probably feel they got burnt with Lieberman and are being more careful.

Personally, why wouldn't he go to the end of the line? He chose to switch parties. I would be pissed if I was a Democrat who had paid his dues and had to move behind Specter.

[JPhillips]

That is unreal. How can you vote to change somebody's tenure like that? Isn't that defying reality? Sorta like the NFL owners getting together and voting that a particular player is a rookie again? I don't understand how something like that could be subject to a vote. We all know how long he has been in the Senate.

That wouldn't work because anyone can change party registration at any time. The ;ongest serving congressmen could just claim to be whatever party is in power long enough to stay in control of their committees.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that you need a person in the GOP who can generate support as a moderate without having to rely on the Christian right. That would mean a senator from a blue or purple state with open primaries (so they can win primaries with cross-over support) or a governor. Or someone who does not currently hold elected office. Basically, someone who can survive and raise money and get name recognition without having to go back to the Christian right every 2,4, or 6 years and suck up to them (and take positions that will doom them in a general). That person might be who can lead the GOP out of the wilderness.

This article Every calcified party is calcified in its own way « ACCUMULATING PERIPHERALS (http://mattsteinglass.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/every-calcified-party-is-calcified-in-its-own-way/) would disagree with me that the GOP simply needs someone to repudiate its base.


In the whither-the-GOP conversation, it’s often remarked that today’s Republican Party has reached a state of ideological rigidity that traps it just as the Democratic Party was trapped in the late 1970s and 1980s. And that’s true. But then it’s also often said, as Ross Douthat did yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/opinion/05douthat.html?_r=2), that the GOP has become ideologically rigid in the same way that Democrats were a generation ago:
The Reagan-era wave of Republican policy innovation — embodied, among others, by the late Jack Kemp (http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/03/jack-kemp-reagan-republican-gop-opinions-columnists-obituary.html) — has calcified in much the same way that liberalism calcified a generation ago.
But that’s actually not true. Liberalism was trapped in the late 1970s and 1980s not by a single ideologically rigid formula, but by a rigid commitment to a thousand different, often unrelated interest group platforms. These platforms were usually expressed in outraged moralistic terms drawn from a common liberal vocabulary even though they often had nothing to do with each other. The Democrats were pinned down like Gulliver by a million tiny commitments: the Teamsters, blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, teachers, Jews, feminists, Amtrak, the Sierra Club, opponents of intervention in Nicaragua, the nuclear freeze movement, and on and on — all had their individual planks in the party platform, and all required a ritualistic demonstration of obeisance from every candidate. Democratic political speeches became long, tedious laundry lists of incoherent moralistic vows to deliver comically specific programs to micro-splinters of constituencies. I remember visiting colleges in 1986 and watching a Brown campus improv group, not very funny, do a sketch in which a young woman activist demanded that everyone join her campaign to help get penguins out of Nicaraguan grain elevators, and this seemed a fair lampoon of the tenor of the times on the Left. The Democrats and the Left suffered from a big-tent sort of calcification; they were immobilized by diversity.
In contrast, conservatives and the GOP are calcified in their narrowness. The only things left in their program are cutting taxes and…actually I think that’s it, with a bit of defending torture and fighting gay marriage thrown in. They’re losing everyone but white males, and they’re losing everywhere but the South. They’re trapped because anything they do to reach out threatens to lose them more of the one constituency they’re still winning. The problems are different, and in some senses opposite. The Democrats wrenched themselves out of immobility by publicly repudiating some of those rigid commitments — chiefly to poor blacks and to labor — to show that the party was able to compromise in order to move and win. It was a Sister Souljah strategy. But Republicans are looking at a different dynamic, and it’s not clear that pulling a Sister Souljah on Rush Limbaugh, say, is what they need. I’m not sure quite what they need, but it’s not really going to mirror what the Democrats did in the early ’90s to win.

[Arles]

I don't think it's surprising. They'll hold this and the Democratic primary over his head to ensure he votes with them on health care and supreme court justices. The Dems probably feel they got burnt with Lieberman and are being more careful.

Personally, why wouldn't he go to the end of the line? He chose to switch parties. I would be pissed if I was a Democrat who had paid his dues and had to move behind Specter.
From what I can gather from the reports, it seemed that Reid told Specter he would keep his seniority when Specter first talked about switching. Then, after he made the move, Reid reneged on that promise under pressure from other democrats.

I agree with you in principle, but the way Reid handled looks pretty seedy.