It seems that all anyone wants to talk about tonight is the new poll out of Virginia that shows that women there hate Romney and that Clarence Thomas is the only black man in the state who plans to vote for him. Kos did some good analysis on a separate but related subject, which is that Obama has a Southwestern strategy and, if he wins Arizona, Romney is going to be pretty near out of luck.
I know it’s early and pretty much anything can still happen, but I want to talk about a hypothetical scenario. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Obama goes on to win every state that he won last time, plus Arizona. And let’s say that he wins by even stronger margins in Virginia and North Carolina. And let’s say that Romney doesn’t even come close to winning anywhere in the Upper Midwest and gets beats solidly in Florida.
This isn’t a pie in the sky scenario. Recent polls show Obama leading, tied, or narrowly behind in Arizona. And other polls show him leading in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, and in other swingy states. So, let’s think about this. How would the Republicans react?
In recent times, the Republicans have responded to victory and defeat the same way. They interpret either outcome as proof that they need to move to the right. But an electoral map like the one I’ve described puts them in a no-win situation. Let me lay out some of the features of this map.
GOP shut out in New England (34 electoral votes)
GOP shut out in Mid-Atlantic, including PA and DC (83 electoral votes)
GOP shut out in Upper Midwest (96 electoral votes)
GOP shut out on Pacific coast (73 electoral votes)
GOP loses Southwest, including Colorado, 29-5 (GOP holds Utah)
GOP cedes 55 electoral votes from the Old Confederacy (Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida).
What is that? About 370 electoral votes? About 100 more than is required to win the presidency?
You can’t turn that around by winning back New Hampshire (4 votes) or Indiana (11 votes). If the GOP isn’t close in states like Florida and Virginia and they’re fighting for their lives in Arizona and North Carolina, then they don’t have very good odds of winning the presidency any time soon. And, if they win it, they’ll win it like Bush, by the skin of their teeth.
It’s too early to say with confidence that this will be the result of the election, but if this is what happens, the GOP pretty much has to do a major reassessment. They will have to figure out a way to win back constituencies. My prediction is that their two biggest obstacles to regaining viability as a national party will be Latino voters and suburban women. They will have give up being the party of angry white men and make some kind of deal on comprehensive immigration reform. And they are going to have to stop these incredibly aggressive attacks on abortion rights and women’s health. If they don’t, they simply will not win the presidency ever again.
It won’t be an easy transition, and it’s possible that they won’t be able to transform themselves. The GOP was unable to gain control of the House of Representatives for more than two single terms between 1933 and 1995. They know how to operate in a near-permanent minority. I think that’s where they’re headed.
But, another way of looking at current events is that they are currently at their high-water mark for conservatism, and if they can just win this election they can really undo the New Deal, the Great Society, and overturn Roe v. Wade. They can use the High Court to give them advantages, like unlimited corporate spending in elections, that will allow them to remain as a viable national party.
I’m optimistic, but the stakes are incredibly high in this election.
Less generically, straight white men need to re-assess their voting patterns, as an aggregate. Because they’ll be essentially the only folks voting republican.
There is no reason to let our guard down but Obama will win even as we work to attempt to secure a blowout for him.
My attention is on the house and the state le,el races though.
By the way, there’s a great book out, It’s even worse than it looks.
It.s by two poljtical sci. guys who.ve been studying Congress and its problems for decades.
Lol, they’re not “neck and neck” IN Richmond. And I doubt they’re neck and neck around it. Obama will crush him in Richmond — probably 80-20 or something. He’ll probably win Henrico, as it’s the poorer Richmond suburbs, with a higher than average AA population. Then Obama will probably lose the other surrounding areas 55-45. Places like Hanover and Chesterfield, where the rich Republicans who work in the city live.
Japan has had 17 different prime ministers in the last 25 years.
Seventeen.
That’s what the GOP is doing. They can’t win the presidency right now, but as long as they are guaranteed one of two spots on a ballot, 2010 is always a possibility if the economic conditions are right. They just have to stick around and do everything they can to make government grind to a halt as frequently as possible.
In the scenario of a blowout or near-blowout, there’s only one big obstacle to regaining viability of the GOP as a national party, next to which everything else pales: who’s going to fight for that viability? Moderates? What moderates?
The money guys will, and the old guard will, but at the state and local levels their influence is now minimal, and their candidates won’t usually enjoy the sort of ass-clown opposition and ginormous money advantage Romney has had in the presidential primary.
Look at the GOP’s bench for the next decade: the governorships, the US House members, the state capitols. See any up and coming moderates in the party? Any at all? Any reason why a new recruit would want to hitch his or her change in career to the current collection of nut jobs if she or he isn’t one, too?
In every election for at least the last 30 years the GOP has blamed its losses on not being conservative enough. The base and its echo chamber enablers will keep telling themselves that regardless of exit polling – those companies are part of the liberal conspiracy, and anyway they’re all sciencey and shit. Reality left the GOP house some time ago, and Sarah Palin changed the locks. They’re now remodeling.
The only thing I can see that might make the current iteration of the GOP reconsider its ways is if the Tea Party (or its successor) gets the 2016 nomination and a well-funded right/center independent effort makes huge inroads at the GOP’s expense. That might cause a reassessment, one that would be long and painful since at that point the loons will have been dominating the party for going on a decade. Or it might be the death of the GOP as we know it. I really don’t know. Unless Obama gets a meaningful SCOTUS appointment or two in his second term, the courts could still shift things a lot, too.
What I do know is that various shades of far right, faith-based, conspiracy-fueled kooks have made up maybe 20-30 percent of the US electorate for generations. This is their high water mark of power so far, and it may well recede moving forward. However: Obama is still likely to face a gridlocked Congress in his second term, which will be to the GOP’s advantage in 2016, which is why many of its stars sat out this time. SCOTUS will still be in the balance. And regardless, the nutjobs aren’t going anywhere. They’ve had a taste, and they don’t give up. We dismiss them, this year or in the future, at our own peril.
The Paulties maybe?
Recently they have essentially taking over the Alaskan GOP and I just today heard an MPR story about their surging strength in Minnesota’s GOP.
The Paulites are insane economically (though the Fed operates well only in comparison to the ECB), but they talk a good game and they really are onto something with their stances on international intervention and government regulation.
This appeals to a number of people (insert joke here about computer programmers and randbots) and even if it doesn’t, if people who only vote Dem because the Republicans are insane, think they’ll moderate some on the Fed talk if they win they might like the idea of less government intrusion like less war on drugs.
Reality left the GOP house some time ago, and Sarah Palin changed the locks.
That’s a keeper.
Oh, Booman.
You just don’t understand, do you.
One feature of a successful fix is to not let the marks get complacent.
Too comfortable.
Or, as William Burroughs so accurately observed regarding control mechanisms of all sorts (From his book “The Job”):
Why are you “so optimistic, but also worried?”
‘Cuz that’s just where they want you, cuz’.
Precisely where they want you.
Dithering.
The good cop/bad cop game, up a notch or two or three.
To you:
To some others?
The controllers not only “know what reactive commands they are going to restimulate,” but with the modern media machine they can focus those commands in precise amounts aimed at precisely chosen demographics, so now they really know what will happen.
So it goes.
Have fun.
I am.
Why?
How?
Because the alternative is totally unacceptable.
That’s why.
Me too.
Later…
AG
Ron Paul lost, and you were wrong about people opening their eyes to him, because people prefered Santorum and Gingrich to Ron Pal, not because of a “fix.” Only the mosgt arrogant and deluded will rant and rave that the game is rigged just because he was WRONG. Get the hell over it.
Gawd.
Had Ron Paul ben given the same sort of coverage that they gave Mitt Romney and Romney treated the way that they treated Ron Paul, Paul would now be the Republican candidate. Do you really think that if Romney had only been given 2 or 3 minutes of debate time by the controllers during the first several debates while Ron Paul got the lion’s share and then repeatedly painted on the national news as a “flake,” as “crazy,” as…probably more effectively in Romney’s case…as a stupid, dithering robot of a man who was born with a silver spoon up his ass and is now totally a tool of corporate America, do you really think that Romney would be the anointed loser candidate that he is now?
Please.
“…people opening their eyes???!!!”
Most Americans only “open their eyes” when they are watching media tripe, and even then their eyes are really only painted on their closed eyelids.
Get over it?
I have “gotten over it,” suranis. I have gotten over my naive belief that the media are anything but a massive control mechanism.
That’s what’s happening.
If you can’t see it…well, at least you’re not alone.
Not by a long shot.
AG
Well, that, and the fact that Ron Paul is a flake who was running for the nomination of a warmongering party that has no intention of ending the war on drugs, terror, or anything else. So, no, the media could not have made Republicans vote for Ron Paul. They could have destroyed Romney, though. Likely they would have if there was anyone half-sane running against him.
You too, Booman.
You too.
Keep swallowing those memes.
Do you know the absolute worst thing that could happen to your beloved Democratic Party? Romney could lose big-time to Obama and the Paulistas could gain control of the Republican Party. If the U.S. is still in trouble by 2016 or so…or maybe even earlier, say 2014…a re-energized Republican party could start winning again on an anti-war, sane economics, anti-PermaGov, anti-surveillance state, pro-small government platform. By that time, even the mass media might not be able to stem the tide.
May you be born(e) into interesting times. As if you had a choice.
Watch.
AG
you really don’t seem to have the foggiest idea what the Republican Party is about.
What it’s “about?”
Yes, I do.
It’s about to change.
Watch.
Four years from now?
It’ll be way different.
Dunno how, yet…that’ll play out, Paul’s trying to change it, the Tea Party is trying to change it; the Dems are trying to eliminate it…but it won’t be this particular assemblage of idiots. Natural selection is about to take care of that in a number of ways. The old idiots are dying out; the rich idiots are under attack for being astoundingly greedy…only the smart ones will be left standing.
Watch.
It might even change its name and be known at “the Democrats.” I mean…after our progressive savior signed the N.D.A.A bill? Anything’s possible.
Bet on it.
AG
I agree with BooMan on this one. The religious right-older, whiter, less diverse-owns the Republican Party now. Until they go, the Paulites have little chance of a takeover, and even then, people aren’t going to trade a safety net and reasonable regulations for pot. Indeed, the pot legalization, anti-surveillance folks are going to go into the Democratic Party and caucus instead.
The knee-jerk reaction to both by the Democrats is generational: the folks that grew up in the 1960’s and later ran for office had to deal with the Archie Bunker backlash over security and pot. Not to mention being accused of “being soft” over Communism.
Well, Communism is dead, Al Quaeda is on its deathbed (thanks to Obama), and 40 years of pot has proved it’s no real threat to health. Democrats will have more freedom to manuever than ever before.
To be absolutely fair to AG, he was claiming that our political system was rigged long before he got on his Ron Paul kick. So there’s that.
yeah, and there is also land in SE Louisiana I’d like to talk to Gil about.
I first heard the “its all fixed” conspiracy theory in 1964. I believed it until 1972-73 when the sheer stupidity of the people involved in Watergate; and a vice president that could be bought for $25K (damnit, he was worth MORE!!!) made my head explode.
Conspiracies are like assholes (you can fill in the rest).
The assassinations were all “fixes,” DerFarm. As progressively more subtle means became available…wetwork is so messy, don’tcha know…the fixers moved on.
Watergate was a fix.
Monica Lewinsky was a fix.
Both were fairly primitive spook stuff propagated by a willing media system.
Now?
No need to honeytrap ’em or use clumsy burglars and useless tapes.
Now they do it digitally.
Bet on it.
AG
yeah, and there is also land in SE Louisiana I’d like to talk to Gil about.
I first heard the “its all fixed” conspiracy theory in 1964. I believed it until 1972-73 when the sheer stupidity of the people involved in Watergate; and a vice president that could be bought for $25K (damnit, he was worth MORE!!!) made my head explode.
Conspiracies are like assholes (you can fill in the rest).
I am not on a “Ron Paul kick,” Geov. I am on an anti-PermaGov, anti- militarily enforced economic imperialism “kick,” the same one that I have been on at least since the stolen election of 2000. If there were someone else besides Ron Paul saying what he is saying…someone who stood a better chance of winning…I would be backing them.
But right now?
He’s the only national figure who is saying these things.
Call it a “kick”…diminish it into some sort of fad or infatuation if you must, as if I was on a chocolate ice cream kick or something equally trivial…but that’s not nearly what’s up here.
Not nearly.
Bet on it.
AG
I believe politics to be war by other means, and I believe post-blowout-election you will see the confederates giving up on the other means…
A bad electoral map for a party trying to unseat an incumbent wartime President is actually a pretty lousy reason to conclude that your party needs a makeover. Unseating an incumbent President is hard; even harder during wartime – as in, it’s never been done.
If the map turns out as you predict, places like North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado would still be close races, with margins small enough to reasonably chalk up to the effect of wartime incumbency and a superior campaigner on the other side.
Your analysis is correct, and you are out of your mind if you think that is going to happen. You are attempting to say that the logical folks who brought you Miller, Christine, and Angle will apply what few brains they actually have to a social/political problem.
The current actual movers and shakers of the R party have been on the fringe for most of their lives. Twenty years ago, these people were not Republican. They migrated in as Rove and Co. began their shennanigans. They will not migrate out.
I do not know what the center right party of the future will be called, but I’d be willing to bet that Republican will not be part of the name. I look forward to the formation in time for the 2020 elections.
I don’t understand. Wouldn’t a deluded party that just lost an election be more likely to blame electoral conditions and less likely to think they need to change?
You are almost crazier than conservatives.
You think I jest.
One of the reasons I’ve always liked BT is that when commenters think a post is wrong, they almost always explain why, clearly and without ad hominem attacks.
You think I jest.
I played around with 270 to win last night, and went through all sort of scenarios. I’m gonna be honest with you, I looked at the states where I thought Willard could take away from the President this time, and the best I could come up with was Iowa and Florida, and maybe North Carolina. That was it. By getting enough votes to put it on the ballot, they’ve stopped the voter suppression methods in Ohio, which helps the President. I believe that the President and his folks are quite aware of the GOP Voter suppression, but moreover, those that are targeted by the voter suppression are becoming more and more aware of what’s happening, and are organizing to fight back.
I honestly believe that while the SuperPac money will be negative…he’s the thing….they’ve called the President everything but a Nigger in the past 3 years…what the fuck else can they come up with? They are talking to themselves.
And, no, I don’t take this for granted. We must defeat these sociopaths this November.
I’m not so sure they’ve left that out.
being Black, I know the umpteen ways that you can dogwhistle Nigger without saying it.
they’ve done the umpteen ways.
they haven’t LITERALLY said it…
YET.
Rick Santorum has.
Well, be fair; it was only the first syllable, then he caught himself just in time to avoid owning it.
For the next six months [Frank Luntz htt p://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-conservative-voters/2012/04/27/gIQAFxr0lT_story
.html] has chosen the fairy dust principle.
He always seems a good first responder for the Conservatives’ approach. As per usual, he’s tackling perseption so reality can stay in Mitt’s quiet rooms.
sorry bout that
Poll: Mourdock Leads Lugar by 10 Points For Indiana Primary
Eric Kleefeld- May 4, 2012, 10:02 AM
The new Howey Politics/DePauw University poll of Indiana has some big news: In the Republican primary for Senate next week, longtime incumbent Sen. Dick Lugar now trails his right-wing challenger, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, by ten points.
The numbers: Mourdock 48%, Lugar 38%. The survey of likely primary voters was conducted April 30-May 1, and has a ±3.7% margin of error.
In the previous Howey/DePauw poll from late March, Lugar was ahead by 42%-35%.
The presumptive Democratic nominee is Rep. Joe Donnelly — with some Dems hopeful that a Mourdock win in the primary would open up this seat for a pickup.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/poll-mourdock-leads-lugar-by-10-points-for-indiana-primary
.php
While it would be nice to have Donnelly pick up another seat on the way to the magic 60 senators, its hard to work up much enthusiasm for someone a lot further to the right than Evan. A pox on all their houses, especially Mourdock.
Political AnimalBlog
May 04, 2012 10:39 AM
Mitt’s Map
By Ed Kilgore
At WaPo today, Dan Balz and Philip Rucker offer a baseline general election story on Romney’s electoral college strategy. From beginning to end, they emphasize that Mitt has a “narrow path to victory,” without a lot of room for maneuvering or feints. That path is basically what Karl Rove, with his knack for making every straight line look crooked, calls a “3-2-1” plan, based on winning three traditionally Republican states Obama grabbed in 2008 (IN, NC and VA), then the two classic “tossup” states (FL and OH), and then one out of a grab-bag of other battleground states, including IA, NH, NV and CO (with many GOPers adding MI and PA based on their party’s recent down-ballot performance, though neither state has gone Republican in a presidential election since 1988).
The bottom line is that Romney has little margin for error, and even if he wins back Obama’s “breakthrough” states along with the two big tossups, he’s going to have to win somewhere in the northeast, in Rust Belt Land or in the Western states where his weak standing with Latinos is a really big problem (offset partially, at least in NV and AZ, by his exceptional strength among LDS voters).
Interestingly, the Balz/Rucker piece appears the same day WaPo has released a new poll of VA, one of those must-win Romney states, showing Obama up there among RVs by a 51-44 margin.
If this sort of battleground maneuvering fascinates you, check out one of the many interactive Electoral Vote mapping sites available on the web, where you can play at being Grand Strategist. It becomes pretty apparent very quickly that whatever strategery Team Mitt deploys, it’s going to need a significant national shift from where we are now to get safely to 270.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_05/mitts_map037106.php