Rest assured, that moment will never come. Political courage is not their forte.
Posted on 12/05/2014 3:51:14 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Republicans have lost the last two presidential elections, but not much else over the past six years. They’ve captured the House and Senate. They now hold 31 governorships and 69 of the 99 state legislative chambers. What this means is pretty simple: There’s an emerging Republican majority.
The GOP still has significant emerging to do before reaching majority status. It may never get there. The rise this year may be Republicans’ peak for now. They may have achieved nothing more than what University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato calls “the emerging outline of possible GOP victory in 2016.”
At the very least, a Republican must win the White House in 2016 while maintaining control of Congress. Republicans need to attract more votes from minorities, particularly Hispanics. They must continue to improve their appeal to women. Most of all, Republicans must avoid self-inflicted wounds such as prompting another government shutdown or nominating a poor presidential candidate.
That’s a lot to pull off. But Republicans have advantages they lacked in the presidential years of 2008 and 2012. One is the eight-year itch. That’s the tendency of voters to change parties in the White House after a two-term presidency. The only exception in the last seven instances of such a presidency was the election of George H. W. Bush in 1988 after Reagan’s two terms.
And President Obama is likely to make things worse for the Democratic candidate in 2016. He is not only unpopular but also appears committed to an unpopular agenda. Every poll shows Americans want compromise in Washington. Obama’s preference is for confrontation.
Then there’s the ideological direction of the Democratic party. It’s tilting left. All the energy and passion is on the left. The party is being McGovernized. Moderates have about as much influence as liberals do in the Republican party. The Democratic agenda—bigger government, higher taxes, increased spending, and cultural nihilism—isn’t a winning combination for 2016.
Midterm elections are not predictive of presidential outcomes. We know that from recent history: After winning in a landslide in the 2010 midterm, Republicans lost the presidential race two years later. Still, the 2014 election offers some clues about political trends. For instance, it suggests the Obama coalition is not the same as the Democratic coalition.
Obama was a great presidential candidate. He maximized the Democratic vote. But when he wasn’t on the ballot in 2010 and 2014, Democrats lost badly. Their turnout machine didn’t work as effectively without him on the ticket. So the Democratic coalition will probably be less broad in 2016.
Democrats think they have a number of current issues on their side. But issues that poll well don’t always cause voters to back candidates of the party associated with those issues. Raising the minimum wage is a good example. It’s clearly a Democratic issue. In November, voters in Arkansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Alaska backed increases in the minimum wage. At the same time, they elected Republicans to the Senate—and by large margins except in Alaska.
Among the major Democratic issues today are global warming, same-sex marriage, abortion, and voter ID. Global warming is so far down the list of issues that voters care about, it has dropped out of sight. The fight over gay marriage is over. Democrats benefited in two election cycles from blaming Republicans for a “war on women” involving abortion and contraception. That issue died in 2014. Opposing voter ID laws may galvanize African Americans and the party base, but that’s it. Besides, there’s no evidence such laws prevent voting.
Immigration is different. It divides the country. It’s a problem for Republicans, who need 40 percent or more of Hispanic voters to win the presidency. It is one of the few issues that actually may help Democrats. Even so, Republicans fared better with Hispanic voters in 2014 than in 2012. In Texas, Republican Greg Abbott got 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in winning the governor’s race.
The Hispanic vote is growing, but it’s voters over 65 who are increasing the fastest as a share of the electorate. According to one estimate, seniors will be 30 percent of voters in 2030, Hispanics only 15 percent. And older voters tend to be more conservative, thus inclined to vote for Republicans.
The youngest voters, 18 to 29, are beginning to slip away from Democrats, too. Exit polls showed House Democrats had “half the advantage” with voters under 30 this year than they did in 2006. “The party’s grip on the young may be loosening,” wrote Mark Bauerlein in the New York Times.
Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe said Democrats ought to have touted aggressively the economy in the 2014 campaign. He should know better. Employment has improved, especially if you’re happy with a part-time job. But the recovery from the 2008-2009 recession is the slowest in many decades as average middle-class income stagnates and the exodus of Americans from the job market continues.
Assuming Obama sticks to his unimaginative Keynesian policies, it’s doubtful the economy will be any better in 2016. And a mediocre or worse economy won’t boost Democratic candidates, quite the contrary.
Finally, it’s worth looking at the Democratic presidential candidates. They’re old. Hillary Clinton will be 69 in 2016, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders a ripe old 75, and Jim Webb, the former Virginia senator, 70. Outgoing governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland will be a mere 53, but the main feature of his governorship—tax hike after tax hike—was repudiated in this year’s election. True, younger candidates may jump in.
The Republican presidential race, in contrast, is brimming with potential candidates in their 40s or early 50s. A partial list includes Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, and Ted Cruz. Who’s likely to be a more exciting candidate in 2016, Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio?
Favorable trends guarantee nothing in politics. But if they didn’t exist, Republicans wouldn’t have emerged in 2014. Should they continue in 2016, Republicans will emerge again. And in the not too distant future, they’ll be the majority party.
And they’re still a bunch of surrender monkey weenies.
Something tells me that Fred and I would disagree on the parameters of this judgment.
“Then there’s the ideological direction of the Democratic party. It’s tilting left. All the energy and passion is on the left. The party is being McGovernized.”
LOL. The dems were McGovernized in 1972 and have never looked back.
Yup. I’m old.
The Republicans lost my trust and support when they nominated McCain.
They have a long way to go to earn them back.
No it doesn't. The only division is between the political elite who want open borders, and the large majority of Americans who don't.
Even blue state Oregon voted 2-1 in November to deny drivers licenses to illegals.
How could one forget MorTON?
Barnes shows he’s as clueless as the GOPe leadership.
Republicans need to attract more votes from minorities, particularly Hispanics.Democrats need to attract white voters. The Republicans shouldn’t let them.
Most of all, Republicans must avoid self-inflicted wounds such as prompting another government shutdownto say that is to say that they must cave on every budgetary issue. If not every issue. Obama can “shut down the government” any time he wants. And Fred Barnes will cooperate preemptively in blaming the Republicans for it.
or nominating a poor presidential candidate.That pretty much boils down to not GOPe again. I wish I were confident on that score.
If shutdowns hurt us, how did we win so big a month ago?!
Candidates yes, but people with talent, conviction and character not so much.
++++
You got that right. After our blowout midterm, each of them who belong to the GOPe jumped on the band wagon thinking the blowout was because of them.
Those people will be weeded out quickly in the debates and the remaining will be someone with Conservative values.
Will Republicans put up a strong leader as their Presidential candidate in 2016? In 1980, in selecting a Presidential candidate, the Republican electorate rejected timidity and chose the bold vision and strong leadership offered by Ronald Reagan. In 2016, rank and file Republicans will have the choice of one more candidates of similar mettle. My guess is that we will pick someone like Reagan.
OK, I'll bite. Which state does not have a legislative chamber?
“The GOP has a permanent mentality of defeat that is deeply embedded in the party’s DNA. They would rather switch than fight.”
Perhaps its the corporate lobbyists climbing up their butts.
Nebraska
Nebraska is unicameral, has only one house.
That’s why they are pretending that they can’t do anything about Obola’s executive amnesty.
Nebraska has a unicameral legislature (single House).
Each year, more than four million older Americans die off, thank God.
Young Republican voters helped midterm election’s red wave, exit polls show
The party, or parties, that can better sell their message for the future to the younger voters will be the party(ies) that control the future of the country.
The GOPe did itself no favors by forcing their establishment candidates on the voters in this year's primaries, but they were able to do so because younger voters tend to participate less in primary elections than do the older voters. Fortunately, the Democrats do no better with the younger voters in primaries than do the Republicans.
In my not so humble opinion, the Republicans (due to their overwhelming wins in the 2014 general elections) have an opportunity with the younger voters. Several prominent younger Republicans are entering office. Several were show-cased after the election, namely Mia Love, Tim Scott, the young lady in the WV House, and the NY congresswoman, etc.
None of the Democrats who recently won have been show-cased as anything; they were simply older commies who somehow managed to hold on to their butts in hard-core leftist territory.
Older politicians of both parties need to be ridiculed out of existence. They need to go away. Until they do, people just need to point and laugh, and throw tomatoes, or something. The shift in younger voters toward the GOP is discussed in the link above. Republicans need to exploit that shift with younger candidates; younger conservative candidates; younger common-sense conservative candidates.
Republicans need to talk to younger voters. Democrats already do, from the time the youngsters start walking. If they never hear an opposing point of view, they will only have the leftist message circling through their grey matter. Younger voters are not children. They are young adults who have been lied to all their lives, and their prospects for the future are particularly dismal at the moment. That makes for fertile ground in the compost pile of ideas.
Perhaps its the corporate lobbyists climbing up their butts.
***********
That and the gullible voters who elect them and allow them to get away with it. No accountability in this country anymore. You would think that in the Republican Party representatives who fail to walk the talk might be held to account but that is rarely, if ever, the case.
Most in the GOP are in DC to build political careers. Those people want our money and our votes, but not our principles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.