Go here for HOTT POLITICS ACTION: viewtopic.php_f=2&t=14258

NYT (I know, I know) has an article about the strains within the Republican Party. Mike Murphy, who strikes me as one of their smarter strategists, frames it as "the mathematicians (his side) vs. the priests." Ralph Reed, whom I'd like to see torn apart by the feral children of unwanted pregnancies, speaks for the priests, as well as some Tea Party yutz.

What will be interesting here is Fox's take. Ailes is a fanatic but no idiot, and he'll grasp that they won't come back until they figure out an appeal to Hispanics and a way to get social issues off the table so suburban moderates can vote their wallets with a clear conscience. But their viewers aren't easily persuadable on these points and probably are no more eager to hear that they must moderate to win than were Howard Dean supporters in 2004, or Ted Kennedy Dems in the '70s and '80s. The good of his ratings will come into conflict with the good of his party.

The more I think about it, the more it's clear to me that Romney could and maybe should have won this thing. His background as a guy who got incredibly rich by rigging and then dominating a mutant capitalist game didn't help, but his managerial chops and record in MA could have overcome that. His personal goofiness wasn't disqualifying. That he didn't win has less to do with him as a candidate than the party behind him. If he'd been "October Romney" all along, he probably would have won--but of course that guy would have lost to one of the crazies in the primaries.

It's kind of ironic: the party that endlessly touts itself as pro-business is struggling to accept what every successful firm knows in its bones--you evolve or you die off.

Dick Morris manned up. http://www.dickmorris.com/why-i-was-wrong/

EDIT: Should have read whole article. Starts off well, with mea culpa on his turnout predictions, but then it turns into a "Christie luved Obama so that's why we lost!!!111!!1!" screed. And then, as you read on, it turns back into a lecture about Republicans' "ghettoizing" of their own party by focusing almost solely on white, middle class men. Really weird piece... it's like you can see reason and FOX News hysterical narrative competing with each other to dominate it.

Fun fact: Murphy went to Georgetown and used to rive a car with the license plate GO NEG.

The next move for the Rs is probably to overtly court the Hispanic vote with a less-corporate pro-business candidate. Not that the haven't been trying, but its really the most palatable place to start among the electorate, unless Jindal is reborn, pardon the joke. As bad as it sounds, the party has to become less white.

great, give that idiot even more hits, the only reason hes doing this

thephan wrote:WRT McCain, it was a little scary that he might not survive the presidency and then Palin would come to power. I believe that Senator McCain is a fine, well reasoned, honest, grounded public servant. I did not hate him, but I also did not see him as president. Perhaps that started with having Sarah Palin foisted on him and his inability to do anything about it. That made him seem weak. Perhaps the only thing he could have done was quit, but that is a shameful thought. McCain has always had my respect and that doubled down when he admonished a crowd calling Obama a Muslim and defaming him.

I think it was a little bit of this for me but most important was the change McCain seemed to go through once he saw the brass ring of the presidency. He was, pre 2000, a pretty compelling figure for me mostly becasue of his "maverick" positions and his sometime bucking of the party line. he seemed like a guy who would be interested in ideas and not rigid ideology. He changed though and became more a standard republican and started kowtowing to the party (similarly to how Romney pivoted right). He lost me by the time he ran for president.

The Dude wrote:great, give that idiot even more hits, the only reason hes doing this

I know, I know, but I am in a gloating mood this morning.

mozartpc27 wrote:Dick Morris manned up. http://www.dickmorris.com/why-i-was-wrong/

EDIT: Should have read whole article. Starts off well, with mea culpa on his turnout predictions, but then it turns into a "Christie luved Obama so that's why we lost!!!111!!1!" screed.

Sort of. Saying its begrudging is putting it lightly. He mostly blamed Christie and Sandy for his being wrong, when the numbers for Obama were there all along.

The idea that the Rs have to or are going to run away from social issues like abortion is flawed however. Akin foolishness aside, doing so guarantees nothing. Pretty sure the number of pro-choice Rs in the Senate shrunk last night.

gr wrote:The idea that the Rs have to or are going to run away from social issues like abortion is flawed however. Akin foolishness aside, doing so guarantees nothing. Pretty sure the number of pro-choice Rs in the Senate shrunk last night.

"Run away" might be the wrong way to put it. But at the least they need to de-emphasize and/or become less tone-deaf there.

but isn't that how they made it close?

I mean, changing all that is like an eight year plan at least and there are too many people with jobs and other invested interests right now to change course

Hey moderators, quit posting in this thread - when you do, you unlock it. Go here: viewtopic.php_f=2&t=14258

dajafi wrote:NYT (I know, I know) has an article about the strains within the Republican Party. Mike Murphy, who strikes me as one of their smarter strategists, frames it as "the mathematicians (his side) vs. the priests." Ralph Reed, whom I'd like to see torn apart by the feral children of unwanted pregnancies, speaks for the priests, as well as some Tea Party yutz.

What will be interesting here is Fox's take. Ailes is a fanatic but no idiot, and he'll grasp that they won't come back until they figure out an appeal to Hispanics and a way to get social issues off the table so suburban moderates can vote their wallets with a clear conscience. But their viewers aren't easily persuadable on these points and probably are no more eager to hear that they must moderate to win than were Howard Dean supporters in 2004, or Ted Kennedy Dems in the '70s and '80s. The good of his ratings will come into conflict with the good of his party.

The more I think about it, the more it's clear to me that Romney could and maybe should have won this thing. His background as a guy who got incredibly rich by rigging and then dominating a mutant capitalist game didn't help, but his managerial chops and record in MA could have overcome that. His personal goofiness wasn't disqualifying. That he didn't win has less to do with him as a candidate than the party behind him. If he'd been "October Romney" all along, he probably would have won--but of course that guy would have lost to one of the crazies in the primaries.

It's kind of ironic: the party that endlessly touts itself as pro-business is struggling to accept what every successful firm knows in its bones--you evolve or you die off.

Posted this in the new politics thread because this topic was locked for a moment:

For a long time I thought the Republican post-Reagan strategy of appealing to the aspirations, rather then the reality, of middle America was both brilliant and maddeningly effective. But now the party has come to be dominated by Masters of the Universe whose financial success has convinced them they are never wrong and right-wing, fundamentalist nut jobs. First they drove out the moderates and now they're shouting down even the truth tellers, so they're left as a party of denial. I suppose you reap what you sow.