GOP Making a Comeback?

Remove all ads!

May I ask why you selected 40 years? That would put us in Nixon's first term, which is shortly after Medicare came into being, and HMOs came on the scene. Are you linking Medicare and HMOs with the current health care reform debate? (I'm not being critical here, I'm just curious.)

It also seems odd that you pick 40 years as Republicans have been in the White House for the majority of that time. Over that span, we've had two terms of Nixon/Ford, one term of Carter, two terms of Reagan, one term for HW Bush, two terms of Clinton, two terms of GWB, and now Obama. So it seems like Republican versus Democratic administrations is 7-4 in that time span.

 

It appears that the "cross-purposes" that I made reference to in my previous post has come to a head of sorts. I heard this morning that the Tea Party is officially trying to get on the ballot in a few states that have moderate Republicans. That means that they will be running their own candidates in states that are already held by Republicans and not only against Democrats (like Florida).

On the one hand, there are the corporate, establishment Republicans, and on the other hand, there are the grassroots, anti-establishment "tea potters." It appears that some Repubicans are going to have to make a serious choice. At least this should add some clarity to the bailout mentality, government spending situation that has plagued the Republicans and conservatives. Things could get interesting.

He sounds like Ralph Nader. How cool is that?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/A_Tea_Party_party_arrives_in_Florida.html?showall

 

I made a post a while back where I wrote that both D and R seems to consist of two very separate wings and that US politics would probably be well served if both parties split. The Dems into a European style social democratic party and a more main stream European style liberal/conservative party. The Reps into a more libertarian laissez faire party for the business types and a truly old school term conservative nationalistic Christian themed party.

More choice and seeing as it in many ways already is like this it would make it a lot easier for people to vote. Instead of figuring out what kind of dem or what kind of rep your local runner is you can just look at his party affiliation. Would be hard to implement a four party system with the current majority electoral system but it can go as well.

 

No particular reason. I was more going for a long-term outlook, but still be in the modern era. I should have probably gone longer to include the 60s and the civil rights movement. Call it 45 years.

I think for a truer picture of the past 45 years you should look at this. and remember it is Congress that controls the checkbook.

 

I think the most telling thing from the past 40 or so years is that the last few years have been somewhat of an anomoly. If you look at the chart the take home message for me is that the party in the White House has usually been a Republican, and the Dems often controlled at least one, and sometimes both chambers of Congress. "One party rule" in the sense that Democrats or Republicans controlled the White House and Congress was not particularly common before GWB.

 

And the president (with Office of Budget Management) prepares the federal budget for each year. Congress writes the check. BTW, Snook, it looks like the Republicans have pretty much controlled things for the last 25 years, judging by your link at least.

...And I'm waiting to hear your thoughts on the Tea Party, a conservative third party.

 

Personally, I don't think it would ever happen. As much as the conservatives are disappointed with the GOP, they realize that a third party that splits the vote is a prescription for the party you really don't like to win (see Ross Perot and Ralph Nader).

I think we are far more likely to see the GOP establishment find out that they are losing their influence and that the conservatives will try to place their own candidates through the primary procedure.

I think in 2012 and maybe earlier you will see the state GOPs and maybe the Dems tighten the rules on who can vote in their primaries. I will never be convinced that McCain won the nomination on his own. He won it because Democratic leaning independents decided to vote for him in the GOP primary as opposed to voting in the Dem primary. I think we will see a weakening of the ability of independents to vote in primaries in the next few years.

 

Snook - Then you believe that the Tea Party will take over the established Republican Party? I don't think the corporate suits will stand for that. They will only use the grassroots movement for their own purposes, which has nothing to do with a balanced budget and less government.

 

They may not like it, but they may have no choice. Hoffman almost winning that race in NY is really going to upset the apple cart. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he runs in 2010 on the Republican ticket and wins. There are some high profile Republicans that are tapping into the conservative movement. Palin immediatley jumps to mind. Hoffman was a nobody until she came out and endorsed him. Then in a very Obama like campaign he started raising money from all over the country and got a lot of popular support. The fact that he took down the GOP and very nearly the Dems at the same time without any "suits" behind him I'm sure has plenty of of "suits" in both parties concerned.

A shrewd move by the Republicans would be to start to create a "black" party. That would devastate the Democrats. I'm sure the "suits" would hate that also.

 

Hoffman is self-serving. I don't think he cares which party he can run under.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York's_23rd_congressional_district_special_election,_2009

 

A self-serving politician? Say it isn't so

They're all self-serving, to some degree or another.

 

Yes, but the statement was made within a particular context, that of party loyalty. Snook commented that he would not be "surprised" if Hoffman ran as a Republican. Well, of course not. He has already tried that and it didn't work out of him. But no doubt he will try again. Maybe next time as a Democrat, if all else fails.

 

I don't see that happening. What I see happening is in a proper primary he will probably win the nomination. In this "special election" Dede was basically appointed the nomination.

 

First, in most states you can only vote for the party that you are registered to in the primaries. In other words, Ds can only vote for Ds, Rs can only vote for Rs, and if you are not affiliated with any party (i.e., a true independent) you are SOL when it comes to the primaries.

Second, in 2008 a TON of people who were registered as Rs in swing states changed their registration to the Ds during the primary process to get in on the Obama and Hillary race. In a year where there was record setting turnout for the Ds (the Rs did not have record setting turnouts in the primaries), the vast majority of Democratic leaning independents voted in the Democratic primary, because the Democratic primary was competitive throughout the entire race! There was the snafu in Michigan, where only Hillary was on the ballot, and Michigan is one of relatively few states that hold open primaries, so maybe there. However, to think that there were Democratic leaning independents all over the country voting for McCain in last year's primaries - enough to give McCain the nomination - given how competitive the Dem race was that seems absurd.

Isn't that what typically happens anyway? Wasn't the NY congressional race outside the norm in that there was not a formal primary? Wouldn't you typically have a Tea Party candidate and a traditional R face of in the primary, and typically on one of them would show up on the final ballot?

 

Hoffman ran under the banner of the American Conservative Party, which wants to establish itself outside of the current two party system. This is from the site of the party that Hoffman ran under:

http://www.theamericanconservatives...nt&view=category&layout=blog&id=34&Itemid=126

And my statement about Hoffman running as a Democrat was not a serious one, Snook.