REPUBLICANS: "My God, what (an effing) mess---A loss is what the GOP's political class NOW expects."

[kpete]

The Lost Party
The strangest primary season in memory reveals a GOP that’s tearing itself apart.
By John Heilemann




John Heilemann notes many Republicans "are already looking past 2012. If either Romney or Santorum gains the nomination and then falls before Obama, flubbing an election that just months ago seemed eminently winnable, it will unleash a GOP apocalypse on November 7 -- followed by an epic struggle between the regulars and red-hots to refashion the party. And make no mistake: A loss is what the GOP's political class now expects."

Said GOP strategist Ed Rollins: "Six months before this thing got going, every Republican I know was saying, 'We're gonna win, we're gonna beat Obama.' Now even those who've endorsed Romney say, "My God, what (an effing) mess."'

MUCH MUCH MORE:
http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-primary-heilemann-2012-3/
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/02/25/the_republican_break_up.html

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. delicious.

[liberalmike27]

27. Not Big on Hockey Game

But this is a lot like when a player (Republicans) has skated all the way to the right wall, followed closely by another player (Democrats) moving right along with them, the Republicans hit the right-wing wall, and the Democrats are crushing them up against it.

They really have nowhere to go, no new ideas, truth is they never had new ideas, just the same ones that caused the Great Depression, and all of the depressions before.

But will the Democrats skate back to the left, leaving the Republican in a crumpled pile of his 1950's belief system? Hard to say, but not if our political system continues being pay for play, based on bribing for law.

[peace frog]

75. and nutritious....feeds the soul

[connecticut yankee]

2. Not completely

They are probably conceding the Presidential election, but they're working very hard to win the Senate and House. If they do, then no matter what the President wants, he will never get it.

That's why we must work like the devil to get a Democratic majority in Congress. Maybe what's left of "reasonable Republicans" will vote for them to keep their party from being hijacked.

And don't forget the local elections. Michele Bachmann started out on her local school board.

[calimary]

4. Yes indeed. You're spot on, connecticut yankee!

Things their operatives have said or suggested lately strongly indicate they're giving up on the White House this year. For example, grover norquist saying all they care about is a robot "president" whose only reliable skill is the ability to hold a pen so he can sign his name on various pieces of paper they put in front of him. CLEARLY they're not looking to be able to wield any power from the Oval Office. But remember: they don't EVER give up entirely. They just regroup and focus somewhere else. The House and Senate - AND the STATEHOUSES!!!! Look at what's happened around the country since all those republi-CON governors took over, and state legislatures turned from blue to red. LOOK what's happened!

We ALL have to remember - they're not only working to subvert whatever Obama can try to accomplish in a second term. This doubles as a long-term stealth campaign to build bench strength for the future - so eventually they CAN take over the White House with a Trojan Horse candidate who looks and sounds good but is evil to the core. We have to watch out, EVERYWHERE!!!!! And just because we might work toward a win for Obama, that does NOT mean our work is DONE! That's what women thought immediately after Roe v Wade, too, and LOOK what's happened!!!!! That's what the peace movement thought when we finally got out of Vietnam. And LOOK what's happened!!!!! That's what ALL of us thought when we finally got rid of richard nixon. AND LOOK WHAT'S HAPPENED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember what Mad-Eye Moody always warned Harry Potter: "CONSTANT VIGILANCE!!!!!" The enemy NEVER goes to sleep. Which means we can't afford to, either.

[loyalsister]

8. They have worked the pipeline very effectively

"Michele Bachmann started out on her local school board."
That's correct. We should be filling those seemingly inconsequential elected offices. We should also be getting on local boards and commissions to build local influence.

[southernyankeebelle]

11. I have been watching that mess starting at the local school board for many years. You

could see it coming with the religious right taking over school boards. That is how quitter Palin started. Then she got to be mayor and then governor. We need to start paying attention what parties these people belong to and vote accordingly. Yes congress, senate and the presidency is important but the local and state is just as important. You can see what is happening around the country with ALEC. We need to start cleaning house there first.

[quaker bill]

28. I never vote for republicans

even in local "non-partisan" races. I do the research and pick the dem. Voting for any of them for any office only encourages their behavior.

[southernyankeebelle]

34. I am the same way. I don't think most people thought that way before. But after seeing

republicans in action I began to watch and I will never vote against my own self interest especially when it comes to aiding the elderly, sick and families.

[klook]

40. Been voting 40 years and never voted for one yet, at any level. (n/t)

[hobbit709]

48. Mark Twain had it right over 100 years ago

and nothing has changed on that note.

"In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards."
Mark Twain

[New Yawker]

19. If progressive Democrats were on the candidates list for House and Senate

and they fully explain their intentions - open book on everything on their beliefs, then they will win.


Republicans just lie and obfuscate and cheat.


Who wants a cheater for a politician? Not I. I am not paying my taxes to support a thief.

I'm quite pleased I have a full slate of Democrats to choose this November for the NY elections.

[JNelson6563]

29. lolz Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus!

Yeah, all you have to do is find a candidate who's progressive, take them around the their district, tell people the candidate's views and Voila! Victory! lololololol!!!!!!

Spent a lot of time in real world politics have ya?

Julie

[kenfrequed]

47. which part were you laughing at?

Because the 2010 elections I recall were worst on he blue dog/dlc type democrats. The ones that stuck closer to progressive principles did somewhat better statistically speaking.

[JNelson6563]

51. This part

If progressive Democrats were on the candidates list for House and Senate

and they fully explain their intentions - open book on everything on their beliefs, then they will win.

Really? Well, let's use my own Congressional district for an example. My district encompasses over 30 counties.


Think about that. Look at a map, a Congressional district one if you are so inclined. check out MI's first district. We have two Dems running for the primary. One is a native American, one is not. The NA is more progressive but he won't win the primary. He doesn't have the money or the backing to get his message out in over 30 counties plus he is NA. There is a huge swath of MI (we call it the Upper Peninsula) where racism toward NAs is pretty rampant (some hunting/fishing dispute from the days of fur trappers I think). Also the UP is pretty socially conservative.

So we are faced with getting the message out to over 30 counties. I like how you flippantly said that needed to be done. Considering a candidate is only one person they can't do it in person. What is needed then? Oh, maybe TV, radio and newspaper ads? Maybe some mailings? Get volunteers to hit the doors? Who's going to pay for all this? I guess we're going to need to do some fundraising.

Face it, if you want to get your message out you have to raise money to do it. A flippant "Just explain your view of the issues...", well when you're talking about over a million people how do you do that?

Oh and do you really think 2010 was such a watershed year because the candidates on the Dem side weren't liberal enough? lolz I'm sure you're right and it had nothing to do with the two years of 24/7 tea party coverage and both the self-appointed loudmouths of the left and the wingers were all crying and screaming for two years about how everything sucked so bad & was mostly Obama's fault....

Do yourself a favor. Go find a local candidate to help. Admit you're new to real world politics and ask them to put you to work. Go learn first hand what goes into a campaign. It's a lot of hard work and as a Dem, in many cases, the odds are stacked against you. Get to it and then come back and tell us how simple it is.

Julie--who has run many campaigns

[kenfrequed]

60. Save yoru lolz and look at who lost.

Seriously, look at the data.

Yes the right wing noise machine caused a lot of trouble for us, but the conservadems constantly undercut anything

I have volunteered for many campaigns as well and the ones that seem to do well do a good job at messaging progressive ideals and values. The ones that play soft on the language, run to the right, or remain aloof and milquetoast on the issues are the ones that either fail horribly or elect the kind of Democrats that you later end up regretting.

But that is, again, anecdotal. But really it isn't much more anecdotal than the suggestions you made. Yes, financing elections is a problem but to me that means that it is that systemt that MUST be corrected to improve our system of elections.

All you seem to have is conventional wisdom borrowed from the very pundit class that usually is all too busy running candidates to the illusory center and ignoring the progressive left of this country.

Look at who lost. Look at the data.

[JNelson6563]

61. You talk like a keyboard commando

I take my knowledge of politics from my experience in them. I can't believe you have real world campaign experience and you talk in such simple black and white terms.

Oh yeah, but you're a player out here in reality, ain't ya? mmm hmm. Sure you are. Just ignore all the valid points I made. Just ignore them. All those who don't go beyond the keyboard generally dismiss real world experience unless it's on the TeeVee.

Julie--who wonders how the keyboard commandos think commercials and campaign lit get paid for

[kenfrequed]

69. So far...

You arguments consist of anecdote to which you have gracefully now added ad hominem. Thank you for the pearls of conventional wisdom you have strewn in the path of my obviously addled fantasy prone mind. I cannot say how I could ever doubt the word of a random person on the internet. It is a good thing that most people don't have my damnable skepticism.

[JNelson6563]

70. Ok, let me try again.

Your claim is:

If progressive Democrats were on the candidates list for House and Senate and they fully explain their intentions - open book on everything on their beliefs, then they will win.

By "candidates list" do you mean "ballot"? Are you saying progressive Democrats have not fully explained their intentions? Have not been "open book"?

While yes, if progressive Dems got their message out they would win, at least in progressive districts. The black and white thinking of the previously quoted statement is working from the premise that all districts are made of progressive minded voters. They simply haven't voted for the progressive Dem because the candidate did not "fully explain their intentions" and were not "open book on everything on their beliefs". If only that were true! You don't really believe it is, do you?


The fact that there is so much involved in getting a candidate's message out was completely ignored in this incredibly simplistic statement speaks volumes. Sure, as I said before, it's true that a candidate needs to get their message out but it takes a veritable army of volunteers and as much money as you can raise for advertising/promotion. Sadly, it is a fact that money plays a huge role in our political system. If we ignore it and simply wish it to be untrue we will lose. Every time.

Republicans just lie and obfuscate and cheat.

Well we agree on something!

Who wants a cheater for a politician? Not I. I am not paying my taxes to support a thief.

Um, not many really. But there it is, a bright light on part of the problem. Rs always come up with the money to run their nasty campaigns. They are on TV constantly as well as everywhere else. They lie and they certainly misrepresent themselves as good and the Dem as evil. This needs to be countered and done so aggressively. It costs a lot of money to do so but you already knew that.

I'm quite pleased I have a full slate of Democrats to choose this November for the NY elections.

Well gosh lucky you! Believe it or not there are districts that have entrenched Rs and sometimes they can't even recruit a viable Dem candidate. Yes, it's true! In some places where there is no ground game going on (yes, it's true! there are such places!) and the Rs have a stronghold there are not many who believe they can just take to a soapbox in the town square, share their message and Voila! They win! No, they know they will be up against it, practically have to abandon home and family for about a year and make winning their life, all with the knowledge they are likely to lose.

That's what it's like out here in large swaths of the country. Full slates of viable candidates do not just magically appear. And to create the environment where they exist at all takes a lot of work over a long period of time. At least in a district that isn't a huge majority progressive voters.

One last point would be the candidates themselves. Far too many who have never run for anything in their lives decide to jump right into a federal level race. They get a pet issue and make a few bright statements about it, next thing you know they are running for Congress. Sadly I have seen some people suffer for this decision but they are often led on by those who seek to gain using flattery and lots of ego stroking to "guide" the misguided decision. Or those who are certain they can win a 14 county district (as virtual unknowns) by simply getting their message out. Campaign staff? Candidate's wife and a best buddy~~neither know anything about politics. Yes, out here good candidates who are progressive Dems can be real hard to come by.

What progressive Dems need to do is to make a concerted effort to start local and grow from there. Run for city & county positions, grow a home base of support. Move on to state level politics, broaden support as well as experience. In other words, they have to start getting their message out first to a local demographic and win over the neighborhoods. Then you've got the makings of an army of loyal supporters who can follow you through the coming races.

All necessary things to build a winning team of progressive Democrats. I apologize for treating you/your post so disrespectfully at first. I confess I was annoyed with your simplistic dismissal of what all is REALLY needed in order to win. I've done far too much of it to stand by and let that enormous amount of labor invested by so many be dismissed with an airy wave of a hand type of statement.

Julie

[kenfrequed]

72. Before I respond to this I would like you to look back a few threads.

I am not the person you originally responded to. You might want to discuss my arguments rather than rehashing those I am not making.

So, before you embarass yourself without need...

[JNelson6563]

74. Ah yes, you are right.

Your simple statement is, essentially, more liberal red meat on the campaigns is a sure fire way to win. Because all districts are made up of liberal voters!

I think politics is more local than you think it is.

As to the other, not sure why I thought I was talking to the same person all along, I apologize for applying someone else's words to you.

I still stand by my words though that you take far too simplistic a view to the matter.

Julie

[kenfrequed]

76. And I think messaging is important

Yes, local is important but too many people have embrased a Rahms-ian tactician mindset towards all elections. Winning tiny media cycles and getting meaningless points on the board is truly unimportant unless there is a larger strategy and messaging that is paid some deference to.

To elucidate this I would point out that there are far more Democrats that run against sitting democratic presidents when running for their congressional seats than Republicans. This is an example of not following a larger issue-based strategy but choosing to run towards a delusional middle rather than doing all of our part to move the middle.

Other than bigotry, fear, ruthless efficiency, surprise and a fanatical... oh wait, that's someone else.

The republicans are good at unified messaging even though their message is actually crappier than ours. We have good policies that most Democratic voters and activists would be behind completely and they are issues of economics that the majority of voters favor as well. Unfortunately many individual democratic congressmen only half mention these issues or waste endless time trying to appeal to voters that hate them for existing. The appearance of moderation is not, in itself, a terrible thing. But the projection of moderation without specific and unified policy stances is silly and has all the content of Jello.

[JNelson6563]

78. "Messaging" has been the least of our worries

in my experience. We've had candidates who win over the base lock, stock and barrel. The win few indies and about zero of the (majority) R vote.

Any other ideas? For areas that aren't blue?

Julie

[kenfrequed]

79. Run again

I'm sorry but there are some places that we have to just play sisyphus with. It really is how it is done. The issues actually matter and when we allow the DLC to cherry pick their favorite list of ex republican opportunists we get what we deserve: A bunch of useless guys that will vote against the party and against the president by squatting on key committees and kill legislation before it even makes it to the floor (and thereby maintain a seemingly tolerable voting record).

Again, we have to move the damned middle. We do this by being unified in message with a solid vision and the ability to differentiate ourselves from the republicans. I would like to throw a smelly dead rat at the first Democrat that was stupid enough to say "I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative." Why not just jump up and down with a megaphone and shout "Democrats are stupid with money!" Now there are Democrats that are fighting the idea that conservatives are conservative with money while republicans are disowning that Albatross Bush as not being 'truly conservative.'


Running to the right of running to the right of running to the right decimated our party nationally. We sold out quite a bit of economic liberalism and progressivism and many of us still use language suggesting that helping big business helps us all somehow.

The truth would by my suggestion. I know it seems silly or archaic but I think being honest about these things might be an interesting change of pace.

[Left Coast2020]

25. Winning the house back would be awsome.

But you have to remember the Senate in MORE important because thats where the SC nominees go.

I have a feeling we'll get the House back, but it could be close. We just need 60 in Senate--votes that is.

[Swede Atlanta]

50. Why didn't the Dems change the Senate rules?

Many legal scholars believe the Democrats could have changed the Senate rules and returned to a "majority" rule (minimum of 51 votes). Why didn't Harry Reid do that? Was he afraid the Republicans would do something radical the next time they were in the majority such as not allowing Democrats to vote or not allowing Independents to caucus with either of the two major parties?

[AlbertCat]

66. returned to a "majority" rule (minimum of 51 votes)

How about just making cloture votes exempt from filibusters

And limiting the number of filibusters a party can have in a year to like...oh....25? 20? 10?

That doesn't seem "nuclear".

[stockholmer]

3. the Rethugs do seemed doomed, the only way I see Obama losing is if the economy utterly goes into

the bin (beware of the skyrocketing petrol prices now) or there is an Iran war , with disastrous results (such as either a real or false-flag terror event on US soil or massive loss of a US naval group of ships via asymmetric attacks). An Iran conflict would also trigger a massive financial panic as well, so that is an obvious thing (for many other reasons as well) to avoid.

Even given all that, if Santorum or Gingrich are the top of the ticket, the GOP is fucked. Rmoney would have to pick a game-changer as VP, AND have the above events at least somewhat take place. The final, faint hope would be a dark-horse, non-smeared (in the slog of the primaries) GOP candidate emerge from a brokered convention, such as Jeb, McDonnell, Christie, or Petraeus. Even then, the stars would have to allign perfectly. I suppose stranger things have happened.

[saras]

5. You know what I HAVEN'T seen on DU?

The "public" face of the Republican party is quite visible, as are the indications that it was a bukkake party.

What I don't see is what the money crowd and the think tanks are saying to each other and not to the public. The PNAC was perfectly willing to publicize their plan to force the Patriot Act on us after a terrorist act, I'd presume they're not terribly more hidden than they used to be.

Anyone seen much? Anything about what the corporatists with some competence are planning besides speculation?

[spanone]

6. duh....i could have told them that when bachmann was the frontrunner

[mick063]

7. Having followed politics for a long time:

There once was a fashionable phrase called "riding the President's coat tails".

A description of how voters provide a cooperative legislature for the President to work with.

In such cases, the coat tails are large enough to give the President elect a "mandate".

I don't see such terms used much anymore.

I doubt such terms have become obsolete though it can't happen unless the President elect inspires people. More than just an incompetent opposition is needed. A "perfect storm" for such a scenario was Reagan's victory over Mondale. On occasion, the "mandate" is perceived and even an opposition majority in Congress will relent to public opinion.

[monmouth]

9. First time Rollins has been correct in a long time....n/t

[mr_liberal]

10. This seems very premature to me.

Romney can be a good candidate: he has moderate credentials, he is good in debates, and his campaign is very aggressive.

and the economy is still not great.

Right now Id call it a tossup.

[senseandsensibility]

12. Really?

Good in debates? Welcome to DU. You have some interesting opinions.

[Caretha]

15. As in how can Romney be a good candidate?

Which debate was he good in & why?

Crazy pants vest Santorum is whoopin' Romney's ass in several key states

and I seriously doubt that the Southern evangicals are going to vote for a religious morman cult nominee.

So please do some splainin....I'd love to hear your take on it.

[AlbertCat]

67. I seriously doubt that the Southern evangicals are going to vote for a religious morman cult nominee

Neither will New England evangelicals

nor South Western evangelicals

[abolugi]

18. Once Independents and women

get reminded he is against birth control, the morning after pill and abortions, planned parenthood, etc etc and FOR the personhood bill- he is toast!

They can try to say this election is not about social issues, but the consequences of any of these misogynists getting into office will set womens health and rights back a generation. I think most people realize that.

[New Yawker]

21. Are you sure you're a liberal like I am?

I view RMoney extreme.

He's also a very bad flip flopper.

How the hell he got the MA gov job, I will never know - but for sure, he kind of screwed MA.

Patrick is still cleaning up his messes, so I hear.

[efhmc]

35. Seriously, in what way is this man a good candidate? And his creds stink!

[morningfog]

53. LOL!

Rmoney unfavorable rating is nearly 50%! He has no moderate credentials, he has no foundation or principles. He says what he thinks people want to hear, and says it poorly. He is horrible in debates. Only in the Jacksonville debate did he do better than fall on your face piss poor. His campaign is limp, but his superPAC hit squad is loaded with cash. The only thing he has going for him is that he can spend millions on attack ads. That is it.

The establishment repugs are hating the position they are in.

[aquart]

65. Thank you for your concern.

[zbdent]

13. I thought that Republicans wanted a primary season where every vote

was not just wasted because the candidate already had it sewn up.

Guess they thought it would BENEFIT them ...

But they need not worry. I heard the "liberally-biased media" has stocked up on turd polish so much that there's a world-wide shortage right now. They're prepping to polish the Repug candidate to make sure Obama has a real fight on his hands.

[Odin2005]

14. Don't forget all the Santorum oozing around!

[yellowcanine]

16. Why does anyone even listen to Ed Rollins anymore? When was the last time he was a significant

player?

[Shankapotomus]

17. A few months ago my brother

who is a tea party member looked me dead in the eye and said "You know Obama's not going to win a second term, right?"

Even at the time I knew he was either whistling passed the graveyard or so misinformed he'd become delusional. I mean, the posturing is unreal.

I am so going to resurrect his words to him when the republicans lose.

[New Yawker]

22. Make sure he is considered the big black sheep of your family.

None of my family are Tea Partiers, and they do not want to go any more to the right that they are already now.

Centrist is as far they will go.

Tea Partiers should be reminded that they are still members of the Republican Party and they have two choices, RMoney or Frothy Mixture. Newt is out of the game for good. He'll be dropping out soon enough. So will Paultard. Both are bleeding delegates now.

[Gore1FL]

30. Gingrich and Paul are in it to Tampa.

Newt has $10,000,000 and possibly $90,000,000 more from Adelson. He's not going anywhere.

Paul doesn't need money. He's gaming the caucuses for power at the convention. He isn't out to win. He is out to influence. He's not going anywhere.

[malaise]

20. This is better than blue mountain coffee

Better than our favorite chocolate

Seriously this is orgasmic

[Uncle Joe]

23. Perhaps Republican voter suppression efforts will help make up

for their piss poor quality candidates and policies?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002352096

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[tanyev]

24. But, but, Obama is so UNPOPULAR!

Is it too early for my freude to start getting schaden?

[Zalatix]

26. I'm not so sure about the general election.

The voters have a very short memory and they'll be hard pressed to remember the GOP's excesses at this point.

This is why the "October surprise" strategy exists. See: Mark Foley.

This problem is compounded by the fact that Democrats aren't good at hammering the people about Republican excesses.

For instance here is a strategy the Democrats won't use. Check this out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=352139
It should be broadcast all over the nation, from now to November, that the "anti-tax" GOP wants to raise taxes on the poor. Then the Democrats should mobilize the poor to vote against tax increases for themselves, just like the GOP is mobilizing the rich to fight against tax increases for themselves. The other point that the Dems SHOULD but will not drive home relentlessly is the GOP calls itself the anti-tax party... except when it comes to the poor.

This alone would end the GOP as a party.

[DCBob]

31. I fully expect a political "civil war" for control of the GOP..

between the "regulars and the red-hots" and what could emerge is a revamped party that is more libertarian than republican which could be a more attractive alternative for many voters.

[KharmaTrain]

32. Long Overdue...

This inept and corrupt party has been robbing Peter to pay Paul since the Goldwater days. From the Southern Strategy to the slash and burn games of Ailes, Atwater and Rove have turned this party inside out in its all out lust for power at all costs. It now stands at the fringes and fractured as the rhetoric has pushed it off the political abyss. It's alienated large blocs of Americans from blacks and Hispanics to Women...all groups that vote (note to lurking Freepers: there are more than just 10 ammendments in the Constitution) and stands on the wrong side of virtually every major issue of the day.

The fracturing has been going on for years as the "establishment" who control the purse-strings and used to be able to control the various factions that helped it win elections and gain power have become a monster. The teabaggers who were useful idiots in helping the party win back the House in 2010 is now creating a mess of the primaries (as I had expected) and will not go away quietly or fall in line come November. No matter who "wins" the nomination, the party is so divided, it will lose.

The big question is how far down the food chain this occurs. Will there also be backlashes against the heavy-handed rushpublican legislatures in the Midwest? Will the stupidity and arrogance of the teabaggers in the House lead to them being tossed out en masse? And will the Paulbots go third party and really throw a wrench in whomever the rushpublican nominee is?

Democrats should not be complacent. There are still plenty of stupid out there...ready to vote against their interests so the need to GOTV and work hard to get Democrats elected on all levels is critical. The worse the rushpublican loss in November, the worse the imposion to follow.

[WillyT]

33. HUGE K & R !!!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

36. Hurrah! They are self-destructing. Plus triangulation and "centrism" works.

[Jack Sprat]

37. National congressional, state seats, and local seats vital

for Democrats more than ever. That is where we have yielded ground that needs to be retaken. We need a huge turnout this election year regardless of our confidence in rewinning the presidency. The Repubs have served us up a lob near the net. If we don't take advantage of it fully, then it will be a lost opportunity.

[Beartracks]

38. I got to p.3, featuring Newt, & a diamond ad popped up!! LOL

Alas, it wasn't Tiffany's but it was still funny.

====================================

[INdemo]

39. We need a party chairman that is also laying the groundwork to retake

contol of the House and increse our majority in the Senate..Where is Howard Dean whn we need him
............Lets not assume Obama will win until we win..remember electronic voting machines have their favoites...

[mikekohr]

41. Obama AND 25 in '12

and hold the damn Senate THEN reform the filibuster rule

[SunsetDreams]

42. This is their slogan

[Brigid]

44. This is great!

Did you do this?

[Trajan]

43. This is a well written analysis ...

And right on the mark, IMO ...

The death embrace with the Tea Party electorate is dragging the GOP far far to the right, and stripping moderates and independents from their ranks .... The super rich captains of industry have been cast adrift by the steaming pile of Tea Party nonsense that is now rotting the party from within ... 'True' conservatism (at least the TeaHadist version of it) is a complete and utter loser; The moderates and independents are realizing just how batshit crazy this Tea Party mob is, and are running for the exits.

One might hope the Republicans wise up and try to cull the extremists from their ranks, but that will only plunge them into second class status, from which they will have to spend their '40 days in the wilderness' ... to hit bottom ... before they work through the pain and reform their party on a more reasonable basis. Then again, one might hope they don't ....

The Tea Party just might have destroyed the GOP for decades to come ....

One might hope ....

Hell Yeah, what a fucking mess ....

[Warren DeMontague]

45. When we let the insane people drive the bus

...who could have predicted this?

[Zoeisright]

46. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch of assholes.

I hope they're out of power for DECADES.

[HughBeaumont]

49. "eminently winnable"?

Where the HELL did they get THIS notion? I don't give a shit HOW bad things are (and as it turns out, albeit glacially, economic indicators are getting better than 7 months ago), the GOP's candidates are total goddamned religious right-appeasing whack-nut LOSERS who are still deeply entrenched in the Bewsh 00s and the Reagan 80s. President Obama may not be the progressive people thought he'd be (myself not included, I never believed that), but is putting someone worse than Bewsh in office, if that's even humanly possible, the solution to what ails America?

Logically explain to me WHICH ONE of their candidates could ever have been passed off as a moderate? RMoney with his perpetual stream of wealth-favoring/Red-baiting gaffes and more flops than an unwatered fish? Bibleman Rick Santorum with his openly racist, sexist and anti-gay screeds? Newt Gingrich, who has more baggage than LAX and failed miserably as Speaker? Ron Paul with his pro-corporate, anti-poor, anti-choice, rocket ride to SomaliAmerica agenda?

Here's the other perplexing thing about that "eminently winnable" statement: every single candidate not only steadfastly refuses to renounce Reaganomics, a loser of a program that's so obviously failed 95% of the country for 31 years, but chooses to run with a more extreme version of it. Are Americans REALLY going to tell me that the sensible thing to do to ail this economy is put someone in there to enact draconian measures even WORSE than what Bewsh's were? Need I remind people what the 00's were like?

(and yes, I know we still haven't veered from Bewsh policies. I'm holding out hope that Obama's going to wake up and at least finally allow the spectacularly damaging Bewsh Tax Cuts to expire once re-elected. I hope.)

Things are just not that bad that a majority of Americans are going to vote for a whack job not named "Bush".

[mikeytherat]

57. That phrase stood out like a turd in a punchbowl.

Eminently winnable? When Bachman and Cain were the darlings and frontrunners?

Eminently winnable?



No, wait.

[libtodeath]

52. My hope and dream

is that they are so obliterated and shown to be such an evil that they cease to exist as a viable political party.
They will splinter into several hateful but different groups.

[paparush]

54. When, exactly, did the 2012 election seem eminently winnable?

Repugs - No grasp of reality.

[sofa king]

55. Heheh. Suckers.

Well over a year ago ago I called President Obama in a landslide, and my guess has only been reinforced since then.

How did I do it? What amazing magic did I use to foresee what the Republicans can only see now?

I read the fucking legislation the Republicans had signed.

Which, apparently, not one of the forty million active Republicans in the country did. I suspect it is because they assumed that any agreement they made could be subsequently broken.

But it can't, because Reid, Pelosi, and Obama correctly anticipated that breaking prior agreements would be the Republicans' first priority in the 112th Congress, and crafted the legislation so that it could not be pried apart.

This is the most important lesson President Obama has taught us. They can have all the money. They can buy the media and attempt to control the debate. But Republicans cannot fight Democrats legislatively, because the only thing they know about legislation is how to manipulate it for profit.

They are too criminally incompetent to foresee the complications their own greed creates--and too greedy to notice how criminally incompetent they are. President Obama has turned the base nature of the GOP against itself, and now they not only teeter on the brink of defeat, but I am beginning to wonder whether or not they face the prospect of fractionation and perhaps even the breakdown of our two-party system.

[joeybee12]

56. I'm feeling that German word right now...

Schadeunfraude...or something like that...too lazy to look up the spelling.

[Spike89]

58. I can agree to a point but big blowouts aren't likely

The days when a significant portion of the electorate was authentically willing to consider the best candidate regardless of party are gone. Even most independents tend to be polarized and essentially locked into one party or the other based on their personal wedge issues. Even when the republicans run a comically inept campaign (McCain) with the worst VP candidate ever, they still got votes in the high 40s. The reality is that the repubs could run a turnip and a can of tuna and still poll 45+% (to be fair, we could do the same and get nearly that much).
It isn't just that anyone really wants a turnip/tuna ticket, just that we're unwilling to let the other side win. There are ample "dealbreaker" issues on both sides to make it virtually impossible for most people to consider a candidate from the other party.
The point here is that the margin for victory, even running against the dispirited clowns the GOP is fielding this cycle, is incredibly small and we can expect them to campaign mostly to get the electorate excited to vote against Obama (rather than for $Romney).

[Glaisne]

59. Go repugs go!

Go fuck yourselves you republican pigs. I hope you completely tear yourselves apart. You are a worthless batshit insane group. Go destroy yourselves and good riddance you malodorous pile of parrot droppings!

[aquart]

62. Oh, screw with a few voting machines, there's still a victory to be had.

How foolish of them to give up so soon.

I know I don't feel the least bit secure.

[AlbertCat]

63. Six months before this thing got going...every Republican ...was saying, 'We're gonna win

Delusional then

Delusional now

Been delusional for decades

[Matariki]

64. "that just months ago seemed eminently winnable"

See, there's their first problem. Delusion.

[HopeHoops]

68. Oh bullshit. The GOP is just cleaning out the clown car. They know Obama's going to win.

[librechik]

71. lol n/t

[lonestarnot]

73. hE he he.

[Yavin4]

77. 40 Years of Pandering to the Regressive Elements of America Makes You

a Regressive party.