Last Saturday I had the honor and pleasure of catching a film with former commenter and all around great guy, Last in Line. We went out for meat loaf afterwards and, as is usually the case, the discussion turned to politics. He wondered if I had any complaints about the president other than my main one (military assaults up on his watch). I told him I really didn't. Considering the choices that he has made, what better ones were there? I remained convinced that presidents have to choose the best worst choice because the problems they have to deal with are so awful and convoluted that no human can actually fix them. The president has done his best considering what he was handed 5 years ago.
Our conversation turned to 2016 and the election. Last gave his usual line, seen many times in comments, about the pendulum going back and forth and that some candidate, likely a conservative governor, would come out of nowhere, be the nominee for the GOP, and win because everyone hates Obama. I tried to explain to him that Republicans haven't gotten over 300 electoral votes since 1988 but he was having none of it. We moved on to talk about other topics but something stuck in my mind about his mindset that was inherently flawed and I couldn't quite put my finger on it. After some reflection, I figured it out.
Aside from the obvious fact that the pendulum has not really been moving much in the GOP's direction for quite some time, the advent of social media and how we get our political news (via the internet) makes it virtually impossible for a candidate to "come out of nowhere." This technology has led us to elections that run year round as opposed to every four years. There are no unknowns in politics any longer. All of the names being bandied about for the 2016 nomination likely contain the eventual nominee. Each one has massive flaws and can't win a national election if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. She will win all the states Barack Obama won in 2008 and at least two red states. Period. If she decides not to run, the GOP might have a shot but if they nominate Ted Cruz or another hard right candidate, forget it. The GOP is a dying party. Gerrymandering will keep them alive for the next couple elections in Congress but unless they change, that's it.
And I wouldn't be too sure about the "everyone hates Obama" meme. Yesterday, conservative polling outfit Rasmussen had him at a 50-49 approval rating. It could be just statistical noise but they have had him above 45 for quite some time now. Perhaps we need to stop listening to "the experts in the liberal media" and realize that a good chuck of those who disapprove of the president are liberal and will never vote for a conservative. This simple fact should guide Democrats in 2014, 2016 and beyond.
13 comments:
There are no unknowns in politics any longer
I guess O was the last one right?
Political pendulum swings take a really long time. There was a centerward swing that started in the 60s that took hold and continued into the early 80s. With Reagan the pendulum started to swing to the right. Bill Clinton, being a Southern Democrat, capitalized on that, but didn't do anything to slow the swing down. In the 2000 election the rightward swing had full momentum, perhaps reaching peak power in 2004 when the hysteria over gay marriage probably gave Bush the election.
Colossal screwups on the part of George Bush started the swing in the other direction, starting with Iraq War and Katrina. In 2008 Obama won, and the swing continued in that direction in 2012. The older conservative generation is slowly dying off and based on the general priorities and mindset of the millennial generation (acceptance of gays and minorities, less reliance on cars, a migration into the cities instead of fleeing to the suburbs) the pendulum will continue toward the center, but on the aggregate America will never become very leftist.
At this time we see a resurgence of the far right within the Republican Party because the base -- a small minority of the American population, mostly concentrated in the south -- is becoming hysterical now that they think the end is nigh. They seem to believe that if what they're doing isn't working, screaming louder will win them more elections. They will never go away, but as older southern voters motivated by fear and paranoia die they will become less and less influential.
If Republicans in states like Ohio don't moderate, they will be in grave danger of losing their gerrymandered seats in Congress. That's because, unlike the Democratic safe seats in the big cities -- which Republican state legislatures gave them 80-90% majorities, outlying suburban and rural districts frequently only have 55-65% Republican majorities. That means that Republicans are highly vulnerable to independent voters.
The pendulum continues to shift toward the center slowly, but if too many Republicans alienate the independents in those districts, the shift could proceed in a couple of big lurches.
Conservatives try to paint Obama's presidency as some kind of giant catastrophe, but any direct comparison of parallel events in the Obama presidency and any Republican presidency puts Obama in a much better light.
For example, Obama's Benghazi is totally overshadowed by Bush's 9/11 and Reagan's Beirut barracks bombing. Compare Obama's Hurricane Sandy to Bush's Hurricane Katrina, or Obama's handling of Afghanistan compared to Bush's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, or Nixon's handling of Vietnam. Compare the gradual but positive growth in the American economy under Obama to the insane real estate bubble and crash of the Bush years, or the savings and loan debacle under Reagan.
Even the worst bogeyman that the Republicans can conjure up -- the Obamacare website -- amounts to nothing: once you get through the process and have your health care policy from your insurance company, you don't need to visit the website for at least another year. And by then the site will be fixed and demand will be much lower because not everyone is going to be getting a new policy.
I see several "Good Words" posts in this comment from Nikto:)
I have to admit that musing about your emergent permanent liberal majority reminds me of nothing other than Karl Rove and clowns circa 2001.
Show me how a hard right conservative wins on a national level. Where are the votes?
a hard right conservative
You mean like Romney? Or do you really mean someone like Reagan?
I mean Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. Reagan was center right.
I mean Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. Reagan was center right.
Ha - Reagan was a hard right maniac according to every Dem of his day. I just have to laugh at the revisionism you indulge in; I guess you might even be too stupid and unaware to realize it.
Cruz isn't going to run for President, mostly because he spends as much time pissing off his own party as he does the other. Kinda like when Kucinich was in office, or when Sen. Sanders was a Dem.
Paul - "hard right"? Here again is a guy that the establishment Republicans and the so-cons have no use for. Can he win the nomination? Probably not because he doesn't run around wanting to kill furriners like most Repubs and your holy fucking Obamessiah. Although I guess it will be up to the next Prez to get the Benghazi perps (kinda like Obama finishing Bush's promise to get Osama).
Paul's most "hard right" position is being pro-life; which is so hard-right there is even a branch of Democrats that support that position. Woo-hoo!
The only thing hard about all of the right is the hard-on you have for it.
Ha - Reagan was a hard right maniac according to every Dem of his day.
They were wrong. Compare Reagan to the John Birch Society at the time. In fact, Birchers became Birthers and are essentially the Tea Party today. If Reagan were running today, he'd never make it out of the primary. Obama isn't all that far off from Reagan in terms of ideology. Remember, Reagan used to be a Democrat;) He loved Medicare, Social Security and fought for progressive taxes.
Although I guess it will be up to the next Prez to get the Benghazi perps (kinda like Obama finishing Bush's promise to get Osama).
Well, that's a false equivalency. We knew who was behind 9-11. bin Laden admitted it. Where's the admission for Benghazi? As the Times piece noted, Benghazi is a lot more complicated than most people know. What was the CIA up to there? 9-11 was an attack on US soil and Bush gets a pass from the Benghazi anphylactics. Reagan gets a pass as well for the marine barracks bombing in 1983. Complete bullshit.
The only way the GOP wins in 2016 is if they nominate a moderate. But a moderate will never win the nomination with the core of the GOP so far right. They want to do it again, only harder (ironic, no?) so it's going to be a Tea Party type because they truly believe they have a broader appeal than they do. That's the hubris I always talk about.
If Hillary runs, forget it. It's over. It would have to be some sort of awful miracle for her to lose...like a youtube video of her murdering someone or something. If she doesn't run and the Dems have Biden or some other back bencher, the GOP has a chance if they pick someone with national appeal. Who would that be?
Just for amusement I thought a bit about who the other possible Republican candidates for President in 2016 might be.
* Christie - the fat, non-Mormon Romney.
* Jeb Bush - if the election is Bush vs. Hilary I will leave the country regardless of who wins.
* Santorum - okay, now you have a 'hard right' so-con, but he won't even win the nomination.
* Huckabee - same story but with a slightly more populist tone. I think his 15 minutes are over.
* Walker - possible, have to see how his re-election bid goes.
* Kasich - also possible, also have to see how his re-election bid goes.
I only see a couple of wretched possibilities there, and none that are very inspiring - and godfuckingdamn how America yearns for inspired leadership. One day America, you're going to get that leadership - good and hard.
They were wrong.
I tend to agree with that, but of course it doesn't matter what you and I say now. At the time Dems said about Reagan exactly what you say about your favorite bugbear Republicans today. The song remains the same.
Obama isn't all that far off from Reagan in terms of ideology.
Only in the context that Repubs and Dems are both centrist parties in comparison to the political palette in most other countries. There is no National Front equivalent here - though of course you Dems will argue that at least part of the Republican Party is.
Reagan gets a pass as well for the marine barracks bombing in 1983.
That was because he did the sane thing - get the fuck out of the Middle East and leave those lunatics to themselves. You know who is following the Reagan lead there - Rand Paul.
* Walker - possible, have to see how his re-election bid goes.
I think he's the guy. Christie wouldn't have gotten the nomination even if the whole bridge business hadn't happened. He's too liberal for the current form of the GOP. I think it's going to be Walker. He will cruise to reelection this year because the Dem that can whip him (Feingold) won't run. There are no good Dem candidates in Wisconsin. The email thing is nothing and he has the creds to get the nomination. Note how lately he has begun to moderate in tone a bit. My issue with him is that he hasn't backed up his ideology with results. My mom lives in WI and so do most of my friends. I lived there for 12 years. The economy is really terrible and the cuts in spending have made it worse. He could win in 2016 if Hillary doesn't run.
That was because he did the sane thing - get the fuck out of the Middle East and leave those lunatics to themselves. You know who is following the Reagan lead there - Rand Paul.
Well, I respect your opinion here and wish we could leave them well enough alone but we can't given globalization. Consider, though, it won't be long now (6 years?) when we will be energy independent and we can tell them to fuck off should we choose to do so. The problem Rand Paul has here is that the neocons won't back him and neither will the hoo-rah righties. Of course, those are older people and the younger conservatives love him so he is going to be around for quite some time.
My issue with him is that he hasn't backed up his ideology with results.
Ah, another one of those double standards - only applies to the other guys and their ideology/policy. Any liberal/proggie policy - "WELL IT HAS GOOD INTENTIONS you fucking heartless right-wingers".
Post a Comment