GOP Purge Inevitable?

southsiderosie · 07-11-2012 04:03AM #1

I may have egg on my face tomorrow for starting this now but...

I have to wonder if the GOP isn't going to purge itself of its far-right extremists after this election cycle. They have essentially cost the GOP the senate - Indiana and Missouri should have been relatively easy pick-ups if the nominees had not been such social extremists. And it is hard to see how the national party didn't drag Scott Brown with it.

Will the party shift more to the center? Or will the 'not conservative enough' brigade win out? Unless more Republicans are willing to give the two fingers to pundits and Grover Norquist, I can't see that happening, but if they are smart, the Jeb Bush/Chris Christie wing of the party will take over after this election cycle.

matthew8 · 07-11-2012 04:05AM

It didn't happen in 2010, it won't happen now.

Brian? · 07-11-2012 04:06AM

I'm going to say no. They will hold the house and about 32-33 Governerships. They will be within 2% of the presidency. Where will they see the problem?

Corkfeen · 07-11-2012 04:11AM

I could actually see the more moderate members of the republicans either going independent or forming a new party(who knows maybe the two party system will move to 3

). There has to be issues within the party over the fact that such hardline stances are becoming commonplace....

sink · 07-11-2012 04:12AM

I would also say no. They're more likely to go further right before the inevitable dawns on them. The hard right will push their opinion that Romney was too soft and they will dig their heals in.

20Cent · 07-11-2012 04:13AM

I think they will have to move towards the centre. The extreme wing blew the presidency for them. Far too divisive, if they spend the next four years trying to block everything Obama wants to do moderates will lose patience with them. The economy will improve, the benefits of Obamacare will have kicked in, also the demographics will have changed.

Coriolanus · 07-11-2012 04:14AM

Cant see it happening myself. The parts of the party responsible for putting the outliers onto the voting ballot are the parts least likely to take a sober look at the policies that led them into this position. This isn't a terrible night so far. It's more a maintenance of the status quo. Presuming Obama wins and it's looking like he will and the house and senate are going to be in the same hands, the extremists have four more years of gerrymandering and interference running to look forward to.

Stheno · 07-11-2012 04:18AM

How would that work for the GOP though particularly in the Southern states?

Would it not be seen as a laying down of arms so to speak?

Brian? · 07-11-2012 04:18AM

GOP in a microcosm: Sarah Palin talking about how Obama has no clear mandate if he only wins by a slight margin. That's what the GOP will take away tonight: Obama has no real mandate, they'll take back the White House next time because people will realise they were wrong.

Duck Soup · 07-11-2012 04:19AM

They can't. The grassroots - the activists, the primary voters - has been taken over by tea party-leaning members.

The Tea Party activists select the candidates, so they'll continue to put the wingnuts up for selection. They'd rather lose with a wingnut than win with a moderate.

They also believe at the presedential candidate level that the problem is that the Romneys of this world are not conservative enough.

What's really going to screw them in the future is the hardline the grassroots takes, and likes to encourage, on immigration. If the anecdotal reports of the Latino vote dropping from a high point of 40% in 2004 for Bush to about 25% this time round, whoever they choose is facing annihilation.

Stheno · 07-11-2012 04:20AM

Dunno if any of you have ever read any Richard North Patterson novels, to me the Tea Party are his novels and the behaviour of the right in the US in real life.

Duck Soup · 07-11-2012 04:21AM

Brian? wrote: »

GOP in a microcosm: Sarah Palin talking about how Obama has no clear mandate if he only wins by a slight margin. That's what the GOP will take away tonight: Obama has no real mandate, they'll take back the White House next time because people will realise they were wrong.

Also a justification in advance for continued bloody-minded and nihilistic obstructionism in Congress.

Brian? · 07-11-2012 04:26AM

Duck Soup wrote: »

Also a justification in advance for continued bloody-minded and nihilistic obstructionism in Congress.

Absolutely, it's so close to working that they're going to keep trying it.

Conas · 07-11-2012 04:32AM

GOP's obsession with foreign policy, and ignorance to other countries and how they operate is what will completely destroy them. The result of it all, has been very damaging to their image, reputation, and caused huge debt on the whole country.

sink · 07-11-2012 04:38AM

Conas wrote: »

GOP's obsession with foreign policy, and ignorance to other countries and how they operate is what will completely destroy them. The result of it all, has been very damaging to their image, reputation, and caused huge debt on the whole country.

I don't think many Americans realise how badly the Republicans are viewed internationally and many don't care. Foreign policy played only a secondary role in this election.

68Murph68 · 07-11-2012 04:41AM

Duck Soup wrote: »

They can't. The grassroots - the activists, the primary voters - has been taken over by tea party-leaning members.

The Tea Party activists select the candidates, so they'll continue to put the wingnuts up for selection. They'd rather lose with a wingnut than win with a moderate.

They also believe at the presedential candidate level that the problem is that the Romneys of this world are not conservative enough.

What's really going to screw them in the future is the hardline the grassroots takes, and likes to encourage, on immigration. If the anecdotal reports of the Latino vote dropping from a high point of 40% in 2004 for Bush to about 25% this time round, whoever they choose is facing annihilation.

A key problem for them is the activists are the extremists and if they are actively stopping moderates from getting into the race.

Yup - the thing is that in a two party system appealing to the centre-ground is key.

The fact that you have so many people claiming Romney isnt conservative enough shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of logic.

How many votes was Romney going to pick up by being more conservative compared to being less conservative?

The floating voters are the ones who will decide a race, not the extremists.

From a demographic viewpoint the fact that Romney's vote was an older white vote which is going to be declining in the future, is not positive for their future prospects.

smellslikeshoes · 07-11-2012 04:50AM

Couldn't see it happening, assuming Obama wins tonight it will still end up being very close. A more likeable GOP candidate with less of the Bain capital and tax return type of baggage would have easily beaten Obama tonight.

sink · 07-11-2012 04:53AM

68Murph68 wrote: »

From a demographic viewpoint the fact that Romney's vote was an older white vote which is going to be declining in the future, is not positive for their future prospects.

Logic is not a strength of the hard right. Denying reality is kind of the modus operandi.

Conas · 07-11-2012 04:55AM

sink wrote: »

I don't think many Americans realise how badly the Republicans are viewed internationally and many don't care. Foreign policy played only a secondary role in this election.

Not true, most Americans have realised that their foreign policy in the middle is what helped destroy the economy and pile up the debt.

It wasn't the only thing I know, but wars do cost money. Romney beating the wars drums against Iran. Threatening to get tougher on Russia and China would scare anyone away from him.

America can't afford to be in the middle east now, and they can't afford to keep handing out Foreign Aid to other countries either.

matthew8 · 07-11-2012 05:02AM

I hate to say it, but as long as they're AAA they can keep doing what they're doing.

southsiderosie · 07-11-2012 05:09AM

Seriously, if the GOP is so dysfunctional that they can't win back the White House given the state of the economy, they HAVE to make some changes. And their situation in the Senate is getting worse and worse as the night goes on.

matthew8 · 07-11-2012 05:11AM

The economy's not that bad anymore.

poeticseraphim · 07-11-2012 06:07AM

southsiderosie wrote: »

I may have egg on my face tomorrow for starting this now but...

I have to wonder if the GOP isn't going to purge itself of its far-right extremists after this election cycle. They have essentially cost the GOP the senate - Indiana and Missouri should have been relatively easy pick-ups if the nominees had not been such social extremists. And it is hard to see how the national party didn't drag Scott Brown with it.

Will the party shift more to the center? Or will the 'not conservative enough' brigade win out? Unless more Republicans are willing to give the two fingers to pundits and Grover Norquist, I can't see that happening, but if they are smart, the Jeb Bush/Chris Christie wing of the party will take over after this election cycle.

It can't .....literally it can't ...it has no support in the centre....it really needs the far right ...Chris Christie did himself a favour by appearing reasonable and appearing to come together with Dems over sandy ...maybe he can save himself.

But the GOP has little traction with anyone but the far right ...it spat at women and minorities in this election.

The ones impassioned enough to campaign for the GOP ARE the extremists...

RGM · 07-11-2012 07:24AM

The problem is that they WILL win again. They'll shift just enough to make it work. They'll decide not to fight gay marriage anymore, for example, and whisper sweet nothings at enough Libertarians to keep things together.

The American government won't see any radical changes until they bring the place down on their heads.

Higher · 07-11-2012 09:04AM

I can actually see a Chris Christie-Condolozza Rice ticket doing very well.

Christie is extraordinarily likeable and Rice should be able to swing some of the minority votes back to the republicans

Permabear · 07-11-2012 10:03AM

This post has been deleted.

jank · 07-11-2012 11:40AM

In one way you can say the the GOP need a root and branch reform but then again look at the result. 50-48 so not much at all in it, Obama just did enough in the swing states to see of the challenge to be honest Romney was not the greatest of candidates the GOP could have put forward. I mentioned before that candidates they put forward was very week.

They would be advised to drop their obsessions with morality and concentrate on being a fiscally responsible and conservative movement. They also need to reach out to Latinos more.

Expect a bloody nose in the mid terms for Obama in 2014 due to a lagging recovery and right ol battle Royale in 2016 between Hilary and whomever gets the GOP nod (Marco Rubio, Jebb Bush or Chris Christie?)

Obama will have his work cut for him and he has to perform a lot better in working with the GOP than his efforts in the first term.

Brussels Sprout · 07-11-2012 11:42AM

As others have mentioned a lot of the conservatists are now saying that that Romney wasn’t conservatist enough. So, in effect they are saying that if Romney had leaned further to the right then he would have got a few million more of the “base” out without alienating more than that number of the floating voters in the centre. This just doesn’t add up for me anyway.

What makes matters worse for the Republicans is that their core demographic of old white people is literally dying off to be replaced by young Hispanics for the most part. In 4 years time this is only going to be exacerbated.

If the Republicans want to have a chance of winning in the future, at a very minimum, they’ll have to revise their policies on immigration since this is alienating so much of the electorate.

Duck Soup · 07-11-2012 02:40PM

In the cold light of morning, it appears that the two groups Romney lost big were women and ethnic voters.

They're going to have to look at policies, not candidates, if they want to change that.

The current party platform and candidate positions on immigration, abortion/contraception, healthcare etc all need to be looked at. Unfortunately, I don't think they'll dig that deep, preferring to turn it into a Romney-kicking contest.

poeticseraphim · 07-11-2012 03:03PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They lost....they did not draw enough centrist votes the BBC said young voters and women made the difference.

Not all of them are the far right....but some are...and without the far right the GOP's numbers would be worse would you agree??

It is just like without minorities the DEM vote would be worse.

What i don't get is they are saying that he was not right enough..

Well where would these further to the right voters have come from??? They think leaning FURTHER to the right would have drawn voters who voted for Obama??

Obama got more votes. And he got them with democratic policy. The Gop demographic is shrinking. And they can't keep the libertarian contingency fooled for much longer. They must see they have to split to keep the integrity of their beliefs. The GOP is not even remotely libertarian. And it is turning the mainstream off. They would do well to break away now and run with the steam Ron Paul gave them.

In ordr to win the next election the GOP needs women .....badly...and what can it give them??

It does not understand the female vote....yes the economy is important but so is equality, contraception and abortion.

And to be honest they frightened a lot female voters this time around and angered them.

If leaning more to the right would bring the base out more that means th GOP has this idea of extreme rightists who are not political enough to get out and teapartiers would rather risk Obama winning than voting for the GOP. I don't know about you but i don't know any right extremists who stay home quietly on their views. The idea that the far right would risk keeping Obama and not vote for Romney is ludicrous and makes me wonder were some people watching the campaign.

You could not have tried to hold the far right back from voting this year. The ones who stayed at home are centrists who are disillusioned ..people who don't care ...I would say they are largely people who are not politically affiliated.

I don't actually see HOW you could get more far right than VP Ryan anyway.

poeticseraphim · 07-11-2012 03:04PM

Duck Soup wrote: »

In the cold light of morning, it appears that the two groups Romney lost big were women and ethnic voters.

They're going to have to look at policies, not candidates, if they want to change that.

The current party platform and candidate positions on immigration, abortion/contraception, healthcare etc all need to be looked at. Unfortunately, I don't think they'll dig that deep, preferring to turn it into a Romney-kicking contest.

Agreed.

GOP Purge Inevitable?

Comments