It's A Long Time To 2012

[Dr.Traveler]

Let us just hope that the Republicans attempt to do the things America can understand and approve of. I am always reminded there are more takers than there are makers...

I don't hold out much hope for that, unless they do a party shake up. However I do think some real change is happening with the electorate, way beyond swinging the pendulum.

As for me? I belive it will be a long time [if ever] it swings back left. The desparation on display from our leftist countrymen is funny, sad, and can always be counted upon when the people they claim to speak for continue to defy them.

Depends on a lot of factors. The GOP was talking about the end of the Left back in 2004, and got handed a resounding defeat in 2006, and again in 2008. The Democrats were talking about the implosion of the GOP in 2008, and are looking at tickets home in 2010. Things can swing rapidly. Democrats today sound no more desperate than Republicans did in 2006 leading up to that election.

The big issue facing a new ascendant GOP is making sure they don't screw it up. In the USA, holding onto a majority of the voting block is practically impossible. Ignore the moderates and their needs and you lose them. Cater too much to the center, and you lose your base. Your own base can fracture: GOP along Libertarian, Business, and Religious lines, and DNC along various special interest groups.

Some of the dialogue you see here, on the radio, and in the actual campaigns makes me think that the GOP learned practically nothing from the loses in 2006 and 2008. You still see moderates disparaged. You still see anyone close to the center labeled as RINO's. Disagrement is met with accusations of being a "closet lib."

IF the GOP wants to hold power, they'll need a Reagan figure that can move the middle to them. Right now, they don't have that figure. The Right Wing Radio guys are in it for the money and are much too shrill to appeal to the moderates. Palin is a divisive figure that actually motivates the DNC, much as Hillary motivates the GOP. Many of the tea party candidates are frauds or loons who have been completely unvetted, and in GOP they'll be running as incumbents, not running against incumbents.

In short the GOP in a position much like the DNC was in 2006: namely they can easily screw it up or they can find a candidate that can carry the White House. The outcome will be up to them. The fact the GOP is essentially in the driver seat on this tells you just how far they've come back.

 

[The T]

I don't hold out much hope for that, unless they do a party shake up. However I do think some real change is happening with the electorate, way beyond swinging the pendulum.

As for me? I belive it will be a long time [if ever] it swings back left. The desparation on display from our leftist countrymen is funny, sad, and can always be counted upon when the people they claim to speak for continue to defy them.

Depends on a lot of factors. The GOP was talking about the end of the Left back in 2004, and got handed a resounding defeat in 2006, and again in 2008. The Democrats were talking about the implosion of the GOP in 2008, and are looking at tickets home in 2010. Things can swing rapidly. Democrats today sound no more desperate than Republicans did in 2006 leading up to that election.

The big issue facing a new ascendant GOP is making sure they don't screw it up. In the USA, holding onto a majority of the voting block is practically impossible. Ignore the moderates and their needs and you lose them. Cater too much to the center, and you lose your base. Your own base can fracture: GOP along Libertarian, Business, and Religious lines, and DNC along various special interest groups.

Some of the dialogue you see here, on the radio, and in the actual campaigns makes me think that the GOP learned practically nothing from the loses in 2006 and 2008. You still see moderates disparaged. You still see anyone close to the center labeled as RINO's. Disagrement is met with accusations of being a "closet lib."

IF the GOP wants to hold power, they'll need a Reagan figure that can move the middle to them. Right now, they don't have that figure. The Right Wing Radio guys are in it for the money and are much too shrill to appeal to the moderates. Palin is a divisive figure that actually motivates the DNC, much as Hillary motivates the GOP. Many of the tea party candidates are frauds or loons who have been completely unvetted, and in GOP they'll be running as incumbents, not running against incumbents.

In short the GOP in a position much like the DNC was in 2006: namely they can easily screw it up or they can find a candidate that can carry the White House. The outcome will be up to them. The fact the GOP is essentially in the driver seat on this tells you just how far they've come back.

The GOP had better be careful lest they become an insignifigant third party the way things are going. They are on borrowed time at the behest of the people that posess Conservative values. And those people are about to shout in one loud resonating voice on November 2nd.

As I said a couple days ago on another thread? A football analogy applies...they're on waivers.

It will take someone of the caliber of Ronald Reagan or better to reassemble it...and help make the Republicans become what they have strayed from while purging the timid RINOS that should defect while they can.

 

[Annie]

I agree. So it seems does Jim DeMint. I can't embed, but definitely worth watching:

RealClearPolitics - Video - DeMint Threatens To Leave GOP If Agenda Is Not Limited Government

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The GOP had better be careful lest they become an insignifigant third party the way things are going. They are on borrowed time at the behest of the people that posess Conservative values. And those people are about to shout in one loud resonating voice on November 2nd.

2010 represents a real danger for the GOP, just as 2006 did for the DNC. The 2010 GOP gains will be fueled by:

1. Conservatives finding their voice with the Tea Party.
2. Moderates turning their back on the DNC over the economy
3. The DNC Base turning its back on the DNC over Reid/Pelosi/Obama's failure to advance their goals.

That's pretty much the mirror image of why the DNC carried 2006 and 2008.

The problem is that a GOP victory is likely to rally the DNC's base, negating #3. If GOP neglects its Conservative base once elected, as it has done in the past, #1 is negated, and Moderates move Left and Right as the issues of the day dictate, making #2 a toss up.

My advice to folks that want to start talking about a "Permanent move to the Right" is to pay attention to how that dialogue played out for Rove back in 2006, or for Dean in 2010.

 

[Annie]

The GOP had better be careful lest they become an insignifigant third party the way things are going. They are on borrowed time at the behest of the people that posess Conservative values. And those people are about to shout in one loud resonating voice on November 2nd.

2010 represents a real danger for the GOP, just as 2006 did for the DNC. The 2010 GOP gains will be fueled by:

1. Conservatives finding their voice with the Tea Party.
2. Moderates turning their back on the DNC over the economy
3. The DNC Base turning its back on the DNC over Reid/Pelosi/Obama's failure to advance their goals.

That's pretty much the mirror image of why the DNC carried 2006 and 2008.

The problem is that a GOP victory is likely to rally the DNC's base, negating #3. If GOP neglects its Conservative base once elected, as it has done in the past, #1 is negated, and Moderates move Left and Right as the issues of the day dictate, making #2 a toss up.

My advice to folks that want to start talking about a "Permanent move to the Right" is to pay attention to how that dialogue played out for Rove back in 2006, or for Dean in 2010.

here's my take, for whatever it's worth. Due to the economy the electorate has been paying more than normal attention to what is happening in Washington. This began over 2 years ago and bridges both parties.

The newly attuned are not happy with what was going on, lo and behold, a new force emerged, the Tea Parties. Not D and not R, though many wish it were so. They threaten the GOP more than D's, but not ultimately in this cycle. What is it about the tea parties? Not isolationists, but not globalists, both exist within the framework. Not progressive and not neo-cons, yet both exist in the framework.

They want government and even moreso the deficit brought under control. In the main they want a safety net, but not a live off government card.

 

[The T]

The GOP had better be careful lest they become an insignifigant third party the way things are going. They are on borrowed time at the behest of the people that posess Conservative values. And those people are about to shout in one loud resonating voice on November 2nd.

2010 represents a real danger for the GOP, just as 2006 did for the DNC. The 2010 GOP gains will be fueled by:

1. Conservatives finding their voice with the Tea Party.
2. Moderates turning their back on the DNC over the economy
3. The DNC Base turning its back on the DNC over Reid/Pelosi/Obama's failure to advance their goals.

That's pretty much the mirror image of why the DNC carried 2006 and 2008.

The problem is that a GOP victory is likely to rally the DNC's base, negating #3. If GOP neglects its Conservative base once elected, as it has done in the past, #1 is negated, and Moderates move Left and Right as the issues of the day dictate, making #2 a toss up.

My advice to folks that want to start talking about a "Permanent move to the Right" is to pay attention to how that dialogue played out for Rove back in 2006, or for Dean in 2010.

Not to further RUB salt in any open wounds of either party? But the People have had it with BOTH...and the partisan rankor.

Learn it, Know It, Live it. Both are in danger.

 

[The T]

If we had only taken Washington's words to heart on Partisanship over country as spoken in his Farewell Address...

*IF*

 

[Annie]

The GOP had better be careful lest they become an insignifigant third party the way things are going. They are on borrowed time at the behest of the people that posess Conservative values. And those people are about to shout in one loud resonating voice on November 2nd.

2010 represents a real danger for the GOP, just as 2006 did for the DNC. The 2010 GOP gains will be fueled by:

1. Conservatives finding their voice with the Tea Party.
2. Moderates turning their back on the DNC over the economy
3. The DNC Base turning its back on the DNC over Reid/Pelosi/Obama's failure to advance their goals.

That's pretty much the mirror image of why the DNC carried 2006 and 2008.

The problem is that a GOP victory is likely to rally the DNC's base, negating #3. If GOP neglects its Conservative base once elected, as it has done in the past, #1 is negated, and Moderates move Left and Right as the issues of the day dictate, making #2 a toss up.

My advice to folks that want to start talking about a "Permanent move to the Right" is to pay attention to how that dialogue played out for Rove back in 2006, or for Dean in 2010.

From your post it's quite unclear how this cycle relates to 2006.

I agree however, that the tea parties do not bode well for GOP.

 

[The T]

I agree. So it seems does Jim DeMint. I can't embed, but definitely worth watching:

RealClearPolitics - Video - DeMint Threatens To Leave GOP If Agenda Is Not Limited Government

A tip of the pending iceberg collsion course of the party of Lincoln that used to stand for the Republic and Union. The Party of Lincoln whom saved the Republic...

But I digress. The parties have become what Washington warned of. DeMint is right.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The GOP had better be careful lest they become an insignifigant third party the way things are going. They are on borrowed time at the behest of the people that posess Conservative values. And those people are about to shout in one loud resonating voice on November 2nd.

2010 represents a real danger for the GOP, just as 2006 did for the DNC. The 2010 GOP gains will be fueled by:

1. Conservatives finding their voice with the Tea Party.
2. Moderates turning their back on the DNC over the economy
3. The DNC Base turning its back on the DNC over Reid/Pelosi/Obama's failure to advance their goals.

That's pretty much the mirror image of why the DNC carried 2006 and 2008.

The problem is that a GOP victory is likely to rally the DNC's base, negating #3. If GOP neglects its Conservative base once elected, as it has done in the past, #1 is negated, and Moderates move Left and Right as the issues of the day dictate, making #2 a toss up.

My advice to folks that want to start talking about a "Permanent move to the Right" is to pay attention to how that dialogue played out for Rove back in 2006, or for Dean in 2010.

From your post it's quite unclear how this cycle relates to 2006.

I agree however, that the tea parties do not bode well for GOP.

The general theme of 2006 (and 2010) was:

1. The Party in power is depressed over the failure to advance party platforms
2. Moderates came to the polls ticked off (in 2006 it was Iraq, in 2010 its the economy)
3. The Party out of power was fired up.

It is really hard to keep 1 and 3 from happening once a party gets power. 2 is hard to predict and can make the difference between a small loss of seats to massive swing in power.

 

[Annie]

2010 represents a real danger for the GOP, just as 2006 did for the DNC. The 2010 GOP gains will be fueled by:

1. Conservatives finding their voice with the Tea Party.
2. Moderates turning their back on the DNC over the economy
3. The DNC Base turning its back on the DNC over Reid/Pelosi/Obama's failure to advance their goals.

That's pretty much the mirror image of why the DNC carried 2006 and 2008.

The problem is that a GOP victory is likely to rally the DNC's base, negating #3. If GOP neglects its Conservative base once elected, as it has done in the past, #1 is negated, and Moderates move Left and Right as the issues of the day dictate, making #2 a toss up.

My advice to folks that want to start talking about a "Permanent move to the Right" is to pay attention to how that dialogue played out for Rove back in 2006, or for Dean in 2010.

From your post it's quite unclear how this cycle relates to 2006.

I agree however, that the tea parties do not bode well for GOP.

The general theme of 2006 (and 2010) was:

1. The Party in power is depressed over the failure to advance party platforms
2. Moderates came to the polls ticked off (in 2006 it was Iraq, in 2010 its the economy)
3. The Party out of power was fired up.

It is really hard to keep 1 and 3 from happening once a party gets power. 2 is hard to predict and can make the difference between a small loss of seats to massive swing in power.

Thanks. My guess is that the party in power has failed, by choice.

 

[The T]

2010 represents a real danger for the GOP, just as 2006 did for the DNC. The 2010 GOP gains will be fueled by:

1. Conservatives finding their voice with the Tea Party.
2. Moderates turning their back on the DNC over the economy
3. The DNC Base turning its back on the DNC over Reid/Pelosi/Obama's failure to advance their goals.

That's pretty much the mirror image of why the DNC carried 2006 and 2008.

The problem is that a GOP victory is likely to rally the DNC's base, negating #3. If GOP neglects its Conservative base once elected, as it has done in the past, #1 is negated, and Moderates move Left and Right as the issues of the day dictate, making #2 a toss up.

My advice to folks that want to start talking about a "Permanent move to the Right" is to pay attention to how that dialogue played out for Rove back in 2006, or for Dean in 2010.

From your post it's quite unclear how this cycle relates to 2006.

I agree however, that the tea parties do not bode well for GOP.

The general theme of 2006 (and 2010) was:

1. The Party in power is depressed over the failure to advance party platforms
2. Moderates came to the polls ticked off (in 2006 it was Iraq, in 2010 its the economy)
3. The Party out of power was fired up.

It is really hard to keep 1 and 3 from happening once a party gets power. 2 is hard to predict and can make the difference between a small loss of seats to massive swing in power.

I can go with this except the highlighted term.

Make it Independents? And you have a deal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But this can't be good for Obama:

How low will he go? Obama approval hits yet another bottom and 54% now say, 'No second term' | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

How low will he go? Obama approval hits yet another bottom and 54% now say, 'No second term'
October 21, 2010 | 3:08 am

...But a new Gallup Poll out this morning puts the top Democrat himself at his lowest approval rating ever and finds most Americans do not want the Real Good Talker to have a second term.

Other than that, Obama should be a real help to Washington's embattled Patty Murray today and Nevada's embattled Harry Reid and California's embattled Barbara Boxer later, trying to salvage the large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

The new survey reveals that the more Americans get to know this guy, the less they like him. His ... approval rating has gone down every single quarter since that sunny promising inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009...

...At this point in the second year of George W. Bush's presidency, 62% thought he deserved a second term after only 48% voted for him in 2000...

George Bush Sr. was around 90% approval a year and half out from the 1992.

Bill Clinton was 'toast' for 1996 in 1994.

 

[asterism]

Of course Dubya was polling higher at this point. It was what? A month after 9/11? He had something like a 93% approval rating in the month of September after 9/11.

Um.....

9/11/01 - Bush inauguration 1/20/01
10/21/10 - Obama inauguration 1/20/09

 

[EriktheRed]

Lotta people were calling Pres. Clinton dead in the water after 1994, too.

Just sayin'....

 

[FA_Q2]

Not only do we have 2 years and that is a LOT of time but there is no alternative yet ether. Ask people if they will give Obama a second term and over half will say no. Give people a mock ballot with names for 2012 and Obama will win out ten to one with the nearest name. Polls mean NOTHING at this point. There are not even defined candidates to poll people on other than Obama himself. Now is NOT the time to be congratulating yourself on the win in 2012. There is a LOT of work that needs to be done and if the GOP gains the legislative branch they will take part in any blame that is to come in the next two years. The democrats will feel it worse as the president is always the one that gets the most blame but the GOP will not be able to cop out with the 'we were not in power and could not do anything' mantra.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course Dubya was polling higher at this point. It was what? A month after 9/11? He had something like a 93% approval rating in the month of September after 9/11.

Um.....

9/11/01 - Bush inauguration 1/20/01
10/21/10 - Obama inauguration 1/20/09

You'll have to excuse Junior. He wasn't born then so doesn't remember it.

 

[Charles_Main]

It is just silly to be speculating about how Obama will do in an election that is 2 years away. Way to many things could change before then. Don't count him out yet.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

From your post it's quite unclear how this cycle relates to 2006.

I agree however, that the tea parties do not bode well for GOP.

The general theme of 2006 (and 2010) was:

1. The Party in power is depressed over the failure to advance party platforms
2. Moderates came to the polls ticked off (in 2006 it was Iraq, in 2010 its the economy)
3. The Party out of power was fired up.

It is really hard to keep 1 and 3 from happening once a party gets power. 2 is hard to predict and can make the difference between a small loss of seats to massive swing in power.

I can go with this except the highlighted term.

Make it Independents? And you have a deal.

How about we say: Independents too.