Hindsight will view Romney as a poor candidate with no core values who looked deeply uncomfortable

Daily Mail UK ^ | Toby Harnden

[BillyBoy]

>> However, many would also cling to the entirety 6-year term regardless (post-Civil War). Situations such as Black Mississippi Republican Blanche Bruce who was elected 2 years prior to the state’s so-called Democrat “Redemption”, and he essentially had to spend the last 4 years of his term in Washington, as it was no longer safe for him to return to the state (ironically, his junior Senator seatmate, the Democrat Lucius Q.C. Lamar, had more than some passing sympathy for his situation). Bruce would later have to rely on the patronage of GOP administrations for a job. <<

I've never read details on what it was like for the first black Representatives and Senators in Congress, but given that they were appointed to southern seats during reconstruction, I always assumed the situation was similar to what you wrote. Hiram Revels, for example, was appointed to Jefferson Davis' old Senate seat in Mississippi, basically to give the middle finger to supporters of the confederacy. I doubt it would have been safe for him to return to Mississippi during his Senate term. If it weren't under those circumstances though, I think most of the citizens of Mississippi and the other reconstruction states would have been pleasantly surprised by the new black Congressmen, most of them turned out to be excellent public officials and voices for reconciliation in the south. It's interesting to note, however, that South Carolina's Joseph Rainey stayed in Congress until 1879, though reconstruction ended in 1876. He must have been very popular with his constituents to continue to be re-elected even after reconstruction.

[x]

Good post on an old thread. Before direct election (or at least before the Civil War), Senators could leave Congress and go into the cabinet with an understanding that their state legislatures would give them their jobs back when they wanted them.

The argument in favor was that men like Webster and Clay were too talented and valuable to waste. The argument against is that the practice made Washington too much of an "old boys" club and made it too hard to ever displace the men in power.

If you think it's good to be able to remove established politicians by popular vote, you might not want the old system back, especially since it's questionable whether by 1913 Senators really were still representing state interests, as opposed to large corporations and other pressure groups.

The reason the Senate went along with the 17th Amendment is that unelected bodies were losing legitimacy and power in the early 20th century -- Britain's House of Lords most spectacularly. The appointed Senate in Canada likewise isn't (so far as I know) that powerful. The reproach of "who elected you" was always available to critics.

For the Senate to stay important, Senators would have to shift to direct election. This also eventually had the effect of making the directly elected Senators think of themselves as potential presidents in a way that Senators chosen under the old system didn't.

Was Romney a poor candidate? Sure, but the alternatives weren't any better. He wasn't the worst of candidates, but coming close and blowing it is bound to produce more frustration among supporters than trailing all the way and losing by a large margin.

[fieldmarshaldj]

With repeal, IL wouldn’t elect another GOP Senator for the forseeable future. Not just 10 years, perhaps 50, maybe 100. Even if one would get elected, they would be like the execrable Mark Kirk, not Peter Fitzgerald. The last legislature that had enough Republicans MIGHT have been able to elect a Senator was the 1997 session (which Durbin won when it came open), when the total number of Republicans and Democrats was 89 each.

The last time there was an outright majority during a Senate race was in 1981, when Adlai Stevenson 3d retired, and the GOP had 120 members to the Dems 115 (back when you still had the “big” House). Of course, at least 1/3rd of those members were potential “phonies”, those districts that required a member of the minority party whom were often puppets put up by the majority in a given district (the most notorious being some of the Chicago “Republicans”). So there’s no guarantee GOP then-Lt Governor Dave O’Neal would’ve beaten then-Dem Sec of State Alan Dixon.

But again, does show you that it has already been 32 years since they would’ve (on paper at least) had a majority to elect a Senator.

[fieldmarshaldj]

It’s really hard to tell how good (or bad) those Black members might’ve been, if only because they served such a brief period. Hiram Revels served barely a year in office (by the way, he did not occupy Jefferson Davis’s seat, Blanche Bruce did). The MS legislature chose to elect the White Republican Governors Adelbert Ames (a New England Carpetbagger) and James Alcorn (a Southern Whig turned Confederate turned Scalawag) to the Senate seats (Alcorn to the full 6-year term that Revels vacated; Ames to the Jefferson Davis seat).

BTW, the “end” of Reconstruction in 1877 (due to the deal Rutherford Hayes cut with the Dems in order to get the Presidency, which would’ve been ended regardless with a President Tilden) didn’t mean the end of Black officeholders. It largely meant the end of their being able to influence statewide contests and the like. In reality, there were still pockets of power in the South that lasted up until about 1900.

The coastal SC district Joseph Rainey represented was Black majority and elected Black Republicans as late as 1894 with George Washington Murray (who had to be seated after a contested election and served until March 1897). Only with the forceful implementation of Jim Crow were the last vestigates of Republicanism in that state wiped out. Just to get an idea in the SC 1st (which Rainey and Murray represented). Murray’s numbers dwindled from 3,900 votes in 1894 (which was 53% of the vote once the fraudulent Dem votes were tossed out) to 2,500 votes in 1896 (34% of the vote against the White Dem who stole the prior race) to 1,500 votes (also 34%) in his final race in 1898. Another Republican ran in 1900 (his race I don’t know), and he got 1,400 votes (27%).

But in 1902 marked when the SC GOP candidates were desultory, averaging anywhere from 600 votes to 30. Not until 1944 would another candidate get over 1,000 votes (7% of the vote), and not until the special election in 1971 following the death of Mendel Rivers, would the GOP legitimately contest the seat (where future Governor James Edwards got 41%). Tim Scott, btw, represents Georgetown, which was Joseph Rainey’s hometown (even though Rainey stayed in DC for a time, he did retire to Georgetown in the post-Reconstruction period, died there, and was buried there, though he was a relatively young 55).

North Carolina was partly similar to SC, and they also had Black Republicans representing the coastal 2nd district on and off clear up until 1901 (with George White being the last), which is now mostly the Black 1st today. Unlike SC, where most of the White participation vanished at the end of Reconstruction, the NC GOP enjoyed a resurgence in the 1890s while making common cause with the Populist movement (in other Southern states, such as SC, the Populists were part of a faction with the Democrats battling against the Bourbons — but in SC, were bitterly racist, as exemplified by Pitchfork Ben Tillman).

The horrified Democrats in NC seeing the GOP-Populist coalition majority went to exceptional lengths to destroy it, and were able to do so by 1900, in massively disenfranchising the Black Republicans, leaving just the Mountain Republicans with a handful of Piedmont Republicans to win occasional races thereafter. The infamous Wilmington Riots of 1898, where there was a biracial Republican city government, exemplified that Democrats were not above launching a coup d’etat and running the legitimately elected officials out of town on a rail.

You’ll note the numbers I cited above for SC races, which had a paltry turnout. Contrast it with George White in the NC-2nd, who received almost 20,000 votes in his first win in 1896 (52%). Black turnout was estimated at 85% because the laws with respect to suppressing their vote were repealed by the legislature when the GOP obtained power (however briefly).

He still got almost 18,000 votes in 1898 (but 49.5% of the vote). But with Jim Crow taking him out of the running for 1900, a White Republican ex-Congressman who had won in the 1st district back in 1878 was the nominee, and he got almost 14,000 votes (37%). By 1904, Republican participation had been decimated by almost 90%, and nominees would be lucky to get 13% of the vote (rarely more than that). Not until 1966 would a Republican get more than 30% of the vote in that district (interestingly, Eva Clayton ran against Congressman Lawrence Fountain in the 1968 Dem primary, getting 1/3rd of the vote. She’d wait another quarter century before winning a seat of her own).

White himself left North Carolina and moved to Philadelphia. He actually tried running for Congress again in 1912 in PA-1 (presumably in the special election when longtime Republican and Civil War hero/Medal of Honor winner Henry Bingham died). I couldn’t specifically document in what capacity he ran, so it’s possible his name was floated and he withdrew, since the powerful GOP boss William Vare demanded and got the seat. Still, relying on GOP patronage, he secured two different positions before his death in 1918.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Yes, there's always this hope amongst the 17th repealers that the Senate will return to the days of the "giants": Webster, Clay, Calhoun, et al, and that's just not going to happen. Most of those giants pre-dated the Civil War. As you pointed out, by the Gilded Age, a lot of said Senators were each representing a specific special interest and not necessarily their state. I don't view the 17th as an example of a "Progressive" conspiracy designed to bring down the country. The problem was with the Senators themselves.

You had examples of individuals essentially bribing or buying seats outright, probably the most notorious example being that of Democrat William Andrews Clark of Montana. He tried buying one seat in 1899 and the Senate refused to seat him, so he then got the other in 1901.

It wasn't just Democrat corruption, either. Examples such as Pennsylvania's GOP'er Simon Cameron. If I recall, one individual mentioned he was so corrupt that he would just stop short of stealing a hot stove. Cameron demanded a retraction of the allegation, so the individual stated, he wouldn't stop at stealing a hot stove.

When Cameron finally decided to yield his seat, he did so, so long as they placed his son, James Donald Cameron, in the seat (which they did). And, of course, you had bosses regularly getting those seats, from Matthew Quay, right up to William Vare's attempt AFTER the 17th Amendment in the 1920s, though he was stopped.

Ultimately, I think the only way we could ever change back to the old system as such (and I mean pre-Civil War), our entire political culture would have to change. If you get right down to it, voting should be a privilege rather than a blanket right. If only those who truly had a stake in seeing our way of life be maintained, those individuals who knew basic civics, owned property, served in the military, etc., all over the age of 21 (if not 25 or 30) would be permitted to vote. The parasite class of takers and the moron vote (the people Time magazine celebrated in choosing Emperor Zero as Man of the Year) would not be allowed to participate.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Over two million less Republicans voted for Romney than they did McCain. Total Republicans that didn’t vote for him probably double that."

------------------

Umm, no.

Mitt Romney got at least 60,848,333 votes (a few states have yet to report final numbers) in 2012:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=1&year=2012&off=0&elect=0

John McCain only got 59,950,323 votes in 2008:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=1&off=0&year=2008

So Mitt Romney got around 1 million more votes than did John McCain.

[Impy]

I’ve posted that several times, nobody seems to have gotten the memo cause it fits the anti-RINO narrative and down plays the other reasons we lost.

That doesn’t meant of course that some Republicans didn’t turn out, some obviously didn’t but it wasn’t so bad that he actually got less votes than McCain.

[Impy]

Hey what happened if state chambers were divided? Did they sit as one body and go by overall majority or did each House have to approve?

Cause in 1981 the rats had the IL State Senate by 1 vote.

Sometimes the legislatures failed to elect someone and split chambers (rarer back then I think) may have been a reason.

[Impy]

You know I never bothered to look up the IL leg results from the last election cause I figured it was bad. It is. They gained 5 in the Senate and now have it 40-19. And they gained 7 in the House for a 71-47 edge. Biggest rat majorities ever in IL? IL Senate a worse disaster than the US Senate.

That puts the House at over the 3/5 needed to override a veto and Senate at over 2/3s.

A GOP Governor in 2015 could be of limited use if we can’t put a dent in that. Oy.

[Impy]

In theory the Canadian Senate is on equal terms with the Commons and they must approve all legislation but in practice they hardly ever refuse or delay passing something, people wouldn’t stand for it.

When Harper appointed a Montreal (where he won no seats) Conservative to the Senate and put him in the cabinet (usually only the government party leader in the Senate gets in) everyone hated it.

Conservatives have long wanted an elected Senate. Oddly enough I’d probably take the NPD (commie) position, just get rid of it.

An elected and therefore legitimately empowered upper house would be a major change for them, or the UK.

[AuH2ORepublican]

You know how IL Democrats gerrymandered congressional districts in 2011? Well, they did the same thing to state senate and state house districts, so it’s no surprise that Democrats had so many net pickups. None of this would have happened had a Republican, even if a “pro-life RINO” or a “Combiner,” been elected governor in 2010.

[PhilCollins]

I agree that we need to put dents into the democrat majorities, in 2014. It’s too bad that only about 1/3 of the senate (district numbers that are divisible by 3) will run, in 2014, and it’s not possible for Republicans to gain a majority. Do you know of any seats in which a Republican will probably defeat a Democrat? I know of a conservative who plans to run, in the 30th Dist., where the incumbent is Terry Link.

The 62nd and 77th House Districts had republican reps. for at least 10 years, but Democrats won, last month. I think that a Republican will win at least one of them.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Yes, as far as I know, they would sit as one body. Of course, just having a simple majority wouldn’t necessarily ensure things going smoothly. Interestingly, when the Republicans had control of the Delaware legislature back around 1901 or so when they went more that a couple years without Senators, was because of an intra-party battle over whom would get the seat (not a Dem vs. GOP battle).

[fieldmarshaldj]

Unfortunately, the OurCampaigns website is down, so I can’t verify that. I do seem to recall the % was similar at certain times earlier (around 1990 ? and in the ‘70s). I don’t believe those numbers are sustainable for the Dems, however. Not to say the GOP will win a majority anytime soon, but the state isn’t that Democrat, and you should get those numbers back down to a level that could sustain a Gubernatorial veto (when the GOP reclaims it).

Presuming the Mighty Quinn runs for another term, is the GOP going to put up a viable reformist nominee or a retread Combiner ? *smacks head* What am I saying ?

[fieldmarshaldj]

Unless Canada wants to go to an American style system, having a rubber-stamp Senate is superfluous.

[BillyBoy]

>> Conservatives have long wanted an elected Senate <<

They need to slap some sense out of their American counterparts (actually, I think the number of American conservatives who want politicians to appoint our Senators is a very small minority, but they're so outspoken about this goofy idea that the public is going to think all conservatives favor professional politicians appointing Senators)

Perhaps Harper's Tories could give them a tour of the Canadian Senate and they could see first hand what happens when you trust politicians and big government to determine its members. This idea has failed in every country it's been tried (including the US) but they cling to their fantasy that it will work this time.

[Moonman62]

Inside the ballroom in the Boston conference centre where Romney gave his perfunctory concession speech last night,

So Romney was supposed to give his victory speech in a state he couldn't win, a state where he was governor?

Now his son is blabbing to the liberal Boston Globe that his slick father, who had two positions on every issue, who would say anything to get a vote, didn't want to be president.

Yes, the problem was Romney and the inside the beltway GOP that anointed him.

[Impy]

That’s why I didn’t want to look, the old lines were already a rat gerrymander and I knew they’d have done a better job this time just like with the new congressional map.

A Republican Governor may not have made a difference, they might have made a compromise, in 2002 with a split leg and “GOP” Governor they passed a compromise congressional map drawn up by Hastert. But on the state leg they took their chances, when no map is passed it goes to a tied commission, when that obviously also fails the Sec of State pulls the name of a tiebreaker from a stovepipe hat. The democrats won that tiebreaker in 2002, (and ‘82, GOP won in 1992). So unless they would have made a compromise (doubt it, after all it hasn’t happened before for state legislature under the 76 constitution) we would have had a 50/50 chance at GOP maps.

And it wouldn’t surprise if they would rig that absurd stovepipe hat or have their pet State Supreme Court overturn the GOP maps. The 1992 GOP maps were only upheld cause their was a DINO in one of the Crook Country Supreme Court seats. The GOP has since gained the one downstate seat that the rats had held but before that in 2000 they lost a GOP seat. That liberal Justice was retained in 2010 with almost 2 thirds of the vote.

So anyway I looked at Our Campaigns, it’s back up, and the rats had 1 House seat better after the 1990 election, 72-46.

The Senate data between 1890 and 1950 is missing but there is no way the rats have ever had this big a Senate majority, not even close. Their House majorities during the 30’s weren’t that large.

And Phil as to seats we may gain in ‘14, seats divisible by 3 are up eh? Looks like slim pickings.

There is Link in the 30th but that district is no good and he has had all landslides since his first narrow election in 1996 (I can’t find the data for his first reelection in 2000 but that’s ancient history anyway).

In the 36th rat Senator Mike Jacobs was reelected by only 10 points against Republican former secret service agent Bill Albracht. That district contains all of rat Rock Island county. Albracht ran very strongly, I hope he gives it another go. One of the House seats in that district (71) was won by us in 2010 under the old lines, we narrowly lost it this time.

In district 42 rat Senator Linda Holmes saw her win % shoot way up. Under the old lines this seat was GOP held until Holmes won open seat in 2006. Obviously she has better lines now. Aurora, lots of Hispanics. Forget it.

District 48, now this was an open seat that we lost. And we had no business doing so. This is a South Central downstate seat. Obama lost every county in it. We must take this one back. It includes Decatur and is 13% Black but that should not be enough for a rat victory. The rat also ran strong in lily White Macoupin County.

That’s it. Every other seat divisible by 3 is GOP held or safe rat.

So that’s one I think we should gain and one more we could.

State House seat 62 in Lake County we had no business losing and better take it back.

Seat 77 was RINO Skip Saviano. Amazingly in a winnable seat for RATS he had not had an opponent since 1994. And of course that’s because he was Madigan’s stooge so we never really had that seat.

BTW those people over at Kos finished their POTUS vote breakdown for the new IL US House seats.

Romney carried the 13th (narrow GOP hold) by 3 tenths of % point.

Obama carried the 12th (disappointing rat hold) by only 1.5%. A steep decline from 2008.

The 8th didn’t vote any better than the 10th or 13th. All 3 gave Obama over 57% of the vote. So did the 17th.

Despite this I believe the 8th is by far our best chance at a gain other than the 12th of course which should be our top target.

The 3rd (Lipinski) saw a slight move towards the GOP. Obama got 56%, down from 58% in 2008. Unfortunately we will never win it.

Quigley’s 5th moved 4 points closer to the GOP, the biggest shift in a rat district other than the 12th.

GOP’s 6th and 16th which were narrowly carried by Obama in 2008 went for Romney this time.

[Impy]

I agree, the Canadian Senate is pointless, as is the House of Lords which longer even has any power (the Canadian Senate does but doesn’t use it).

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I’ve posted that several times, nobody seems to have gotten the memo cause it fits the anti-RINO narrative and down plays the other reasons we lost.
That doesn’t meant of course that some Republicans didn’t turn out, some obviously didn’t but it wasn’t so bad that he actually got less votes than McCain.”

Republicans came out to vote against O for sure even more than in 2008, Whatever misgivings they had for Mitt Obama had them in a tizzy.

The problem was that Obama was far more effective in turning out voters in the swing states : PA, OH ,WI,FL,...
then Romney was. I kept asking here during the run-up: "why focus on national polls?"

Dems turned out voters in those key states and that was not just their political smarts (especially Os) but plenty of idiocy on the R side that turned out voters for Dems.

Not only did Akin and Rush (and a few others) help Dems with their dumb statements, but Romney killed himself with his 47% video. And dont forget Christie and the hurricane.

Plenty of blame to go around in the idiot party.