Is the GOP imploding?

[IronBrig4]

From New York Magazine
The New York Times
And Rolling Stone

It's times like these when I'm overjoyed to be overseas. Aside from Romney, it seems like the remaining GOP candidates are trying to outdo each other in extremism. They were all about the economy until it started to improve, and now they're resorting to anachronistic stances on contraception and "religious liberty." A lot of conservatives are being alienated by candidates who seem to treat their speeches and debates like revival meetings.

So what do you think has caused this? I think it's because they attempted to court the lowest-common denominator in order to get votes. That paid off in the 2010 elections, but now it's coming back to bite them as their more outspoken supporters are beginning to resemble George Wallace's American Independent Party, or the Know-Nothings of the 1850s.

All things considered, Romney seems level-headed enough. And when compared with his rivals he's downright unflappable. And seriously, have you gotten a load of Santorum? Apparently he's been watching too much Logan's Run.

[Denny Crane!]

There was a report on this in the UK on Radio 4 about the GOPs problems, they have a large amount of dissonance with such varied support, attracting more minorities on economic issues but with a large very crazy conservative base in the South makes them deeply divided. They are in real trouble until they figure out where they want to be.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

All of the GOP Candidates are absurd, but I favor Romney as he is the most moderate -- sadly enough. This said, I'm glad the GOP is imploding. I can't stand that party. We need a more moderate party in the US.

[Tim_Ward]

This is actually kind of similar, albeit much more pronounced, to what happened to the British Conservative party after they suffered a major defeat at the hands of Labour in 1997. They were unable to comprehend what had happened to them and somehow got it into their heads that they reason they lost the previous election was that they weren't right wing enough. They then had to spend three election cycles "appealing" to their "base", which seemed to amount to prattling on endlessly about the Euro and the EU - which might seem quite relevant today but back then was a total non-issue and made them look kind of stupid.

Eventually, when Labour was weak and unpopular enough, they decided that being in power was more important than being crazy and they held their noses and elected a moderate as leader, and now they're back in government, albeit in coalition.

The main differences are that

a) the defeat Blair inflicted on the Tories in 97 was much worse than the one the Republicans suffered from Obama
b) the GOP is going way crazier than the Tories ever did.

[Garbarsardar]

Yesterday Santorum said that Obama was a SNOB for wanting everyone to attain some form of college education, and Romney tried to endear himself to the sports fans saying that while he knows few thing about NASCAR "many of his friends are NASCAR team owners"...

You cannot make this up, they're going to get creamed.

[Pontifex Maximus]

They've been falling apart for four years because there seems to be little cohesion any more, just throwing rival republicans under the bus and more polarity. I don't think any of them are more electable than President Obama at this point. We better get buckled in for a second term.

[s.rwitt]

This whole GOP identity crisis thing has been going on for years now. I knew it was serious when even Hannity jumped ship.

[Heinz Guderian]

This whole GOP identity crisis thing has been going on for years now. I knew it was serious when even Hannity jumped ship.

why dont you just let the gays get married? what is your problem?

[Vizsla]

The three last incumbent presidents to lose lost because of a bad economy. If the US economy gets better then the republicans have no chance whoever runs. If unemployment remains persistently high and/or the economy falters then they may have a chance. If Romney fails to win the primaries convincingly then they should ditch him at the convention and select a better candidate. There is precedent for this.

This is what I’m getting looking at it from the other side of the Atlantic. You yanks see most things differently to us though.

why dont you just let the gays get married? what is your problem?

Leviticus?
Which is logically inconsistent because the same people should be against eating shellfish, banking and wearing clothing which contains different types of fibre.

[Exarch]

why dont you just let the gays get married? what is your problem?

because it is a dirty, dirty sin and the leading cause of rectal bleeding

[mrmouth]

This whole GOP identity crisis thing has been going on for years now. I knew it was serious when even Hannity jumped ship.

Exactly. Remembering back to the last election, before Obama stole most every headline, that was the debate; what the GOP needs to do to reinvent itself. Nothing has changed, and that should be clear to everyone. They either hit some sort of bottom, and push reset, or continue down this path, somehow. I think winning the House didn't do them any favors (and by extension the country).

I dont think this is really analyzed enough, if that is even possible these days. I mean, I see most young conservatives as perfectly reasonable people, in the mold of the classic conservatives pre Newt Gingrich 1995 times (as a moderate I can absolutely coexist with those people, happily). It would appear that aside from the evangelicals, there is a significant portion of baby boomer conservatives who have lost their way.

[John I Tzimisces]

This whole GOP identity crisis thing has been going on for years now. I knew it was serious when even Hannity jumped ship.

Oh god, I need a link.

[s.rwitt]

Well, as a conservative, I've got no problem with the Republicans falling apart. The party's becoming more and more aimed towards socially conservative nuts and since 2010 Obama's gotten his together at home enough and impressed me foreign policy wise enough that I'd take him over pretty much anyone but Romney at this point (which is saying a lot).

I'm still somewhat divided on Newt, I'm still trying to figure out if he means the crazy he says every once in awhile or if he's just playing the game.

[alhoon]

Well, as a conservative, I've got no problem with the Republicans falling apart. The party's becoming more and more aimed towards socially conservative nuts and since 2010 Obama's gotten his together at home enough and impressed me foreign policy wise enough that I'd take him over pretty much anyone but Romney at this point.

You're at the doorstep. When you realize he's better than Romney, you'll be inside.

PS. After 2010 Obama has kinda let me down, he lost his momentum. I hope that in his second term he would be more like he was in the first two years that he set the course that saved USA's and worlds economy whatever the detractors and micro-thinking politicians said to get votes.

It used to be that if you trotted out the wife and kids, and talked about the virtues of limited government from time-to-time, the Christian right and the Libertarian right would come along for the ride and you could focus on fairly mainstream economic and foreign policies.

Well, I haven't seen such a republican for a long time. If there was one and he was a nominee, he could be a challenge to Obama's policies on things that matter and run up against him on issues (foreign policy, economy, goverment size). The vote would determine which version of the solutions the American majority prefers.
Nowdays it's not "here are our solutions" but more about "We support those groups and the other guy SUCKS!"

These were the days of Bush Sr. or even Nixon.Now, you have to be purer than pure to both sides or it will cost you substantial votes come election time.

Too young to remember the election of Bush Senior but I can't say that I was impressed with him from the results I see of his work against drugs.

[Sphere]

Well, as a conservative, I've got no problem with the Republicans falling apart. The party's becoming more and more aimed towards socially conservative nuts and since 2010 Obama's gotten his together at home enough and impressed me foreign policy wise enough that I'd take him over pretty much anyone but Romney at this point.

I'm still somewhat divided on Newt, I'm still trying to figure out if he means the crazy he says every once in awhile or if he's just playing the game.

The political groups of the US right have painted themselves into a corner.

Ever since GWB's rise, the Evangelical Christian Right has demanded a "defender of the faith" out of the Republican party. It was a political role that GWB played perfectly; he spoke their language, he enacted policy's on stem cells/cloning, same sex marriage etc. Ever since, the Christian right has not been willing to support the mainstream candidate; they got behind Hucklebee and abandoned McCain, they got behind Perry and Santorum, and the will abandon Romney. In short, if the face of the Republican party is not one of them, they are not on board.

There is also a growing libertarian wing which is feeling the same way. I believe I am safe in saying that the majority of primary voters who voted for Paul would not vote for Santorum if he become the nominee. His idea's on social structuring of society are anathema to the disciples of Rand. Libertarians are even queezy about Romney and his links to an establishment they don't have particular faith in.

All this leaves the traditional Republican, represented currently by Romney, in a bad spot. It used to be that if you trotted out the wife and kids, and talked about the virtues of limited government from time-to-time, the Christian right and the Libertarian right would come along for the ride and you could focus on fairly mainstream economic and foreign policies. These were the days of Bush Sr. or even Nixon.Now, you have to be purer than pure to both sides or it will cost you substantial votes come election time.

This is in contrast to the US left, where you have Obama's domestic and foreign policies giving a sizable middle finger to civil liberties groups, environmentalists, anti-war groups, and even the Gays for a while (don't worry he's calmed them down a bit as of late, no need to provision the bomb shelter), yet none of the affected groups are threatening to jump ship on the guy. This gives him considerable leeway to pander to independent voters without fear of losing his base. It is a position that Romney must envy.

[s.rwitt]

Alhoon, you once called Obama the best president in US history. You're in the backyard.

[alhoon]

Alhoon, you once called Obama the best president in US history. You're in the backyard.

I said he was in the top five and in the 2009-2010 he was! Now I would place him in the top 25% of your presidents.

[Blue_Hoplite85]

It happens again and again in almost all of the recent Presidential Campaigns, we just tend to forget once the real race steps in and all of this social mumbo jumbo boils over.
Santorum thinks by gaining the evangelical/born again christians that he will gain the upper hand against the current big dog Romaney, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Heading into the extreme right (social) stance, sure gets a some nice votes in the primaries, but its a huge hindrance on the presidential campaign. He forgets that with that such stance, he's got no chance gaining those conservative democrats or even those important centrists that could really determine whether you gain 20-30 electoral votes or non at all. For example Al Gore's extremely liberatarian stance on the enviroment and ecnomic issues, arguably cost him the election, those small but vital votes can win or lose an election. And with some of the republican candidates pushing their views further to the right, i really cannot see a Republican President being elected in November.
The only candidate who has any chance of beating Obama's Campaign machine in Romney, but lets face it, not even his own party truely back him.

[selder]

Well, I haven't seen such a republican for a long time. If there was one and he was a nominee, he could be a challenge to Obama's policies on things that matter and run up against him on issues (foreign policy, economy, goverment size)

did you just say Ron Paul? I think you did.

[Kitsunegari]

The GOP has been wedded to social conservatives since Nixon's "Southern strategy", OTOH Nixon's economic policies were broadly socialist, but the alliance has lasted since then. I'm hoping that if Ron Paul does well enough we will have a split between the social conservatives and libertarians, maybe a third party will emerge.