Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Is that why Republicans took back the House and getting close with the Senate?
|
Republicans have the House, and will likely keep control of the House for the next decade, because they controlled a majority of state legislatures when the census was taken and were therefore able to gerrymander themselves so well as to make it nearly impossible to lose enough seats to revert control back to the Democrats, a fact well illustrated by the fact that the total percentage of votes cast for Democrats running for House seats in the last election was almost 60% yet they didn't gain control. As for the Senate, Democrats have held a comfortable margin of control through a few cycles now despite predictions that they'd lose more seats the last time around only to end up picking up seats. Now, with Max Baucus stepping down the Republicans will pick up one seat seeing as he's from one of the most conservative states in the union. However, at the same time Senate Majority Leader McConnell is extremely vulnerable and odds are now in favor of him losing his seat; regardless, there aren't enough vulnerable Democratic Senators up for reelection in the Midterms for them to lose the Senate.
As for the Presidency? The consensus among members of both parties seems to be, and I agree, that if Hillary Clinton decides to run she will win in a landslide. No Democrat could take her in the primaries and there aren't any Republican candidates who could present any real challenge to her candidacy (some may shout Chris Christie, but he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting through the Republican primaries, he is far too moderate).
The issue here is that the Republicans are undergoing a significant and prolonged realignment in terms of intra-party power structures thanks to both the Tea Party and Obama's successful re-election. The Tea Party has been a total disaster for Republicans, despite seeming like a blessing at first. The Tea Party is the reason, I believe, that Republicans have the House and will retain the House - through successfully 'primarying' incumbent Republican Representatives and Gerrymandering the Tea Party wing of the party has essentially locked up the House for a decade. This would be great for Republicans if the Tea Party hadn't simultaneously ruined their chances of winning back the Senate or the Presidency in the next couple election cycles. Tea Party Republicans have proven themselves capable of rousing the anger or a particularly radical, religious, libertarian part of the electorate that seemingly came into its own with Palin's VP nomination and Obama's first victory. However, this part of the party may be devoted and vote in large numbers, thus allowing them to pick up the smaller sized House districts, but they are too radical to pose a major threat to Democrats in state-wide elections for the Senate (Exhibit A: Richard Murdock). At the same time, this problem at the state level is magnified at the national level when looking at the Presidency. They scare moderates and push them towards Democrats and though they don't have the power to secure the Republican nomination, they are influential enough to force the Republican nominees too far to the right relative to the general public (Romney and McCain both suffered this fate). The fact that they will primary incumbent Republican Senators and put up their crazies for presidential primaries (Michelle Bachmann anyone?) shows that their loyalty is weak and strategy is not their strong point (if they even care, which I actually doubt - they seem too deeply entrenched in their views to compromise at all - the successful ouster of Senator Lugar - who had been the longest serving incumbent Republican Senator and who would have EASILY beaten Senator Donnelly in Indiana had he gotten through his, what, 6th primary? - indicates as much).
Obama remains more popular than the very loud rhetoric from the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party would make you think - Democrats continue to support him strongly and moderates still like him even if they've cooled a bit to his approach. The Tea Party is loud and powerful for its size, but it's too small and far too radical for state and, especially, national elections while being large enough within the party to threaten Republicans who aren't on the same page as them (it's becoming increasingly clear that the Republican Establishment is very suspicious and distrusting of the Tea Party). So they win primaries, stealing candidacies from viable Republicans, then lose the general elections.
There is a fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and the Tea Party is driving it. Younger Republicans (those under 35) are growing alienated due to social issues (a substantial majority of young Republicans, for example, support gay marriage and are turned off by the rest of the parties bigotry on social issues). The establishment is afraid of the Tea Party because they've seen some of their best picked off by idiotic Tea Party upstarts so they are too timid to rattle any cages and the Tea Party itself is too disorganized and radicalized to ever be legitimate at the Senatorial and Presidential level. Foreign policy wonks within the Republican Party are quiet and seemingly uncomfortable, appearing more moderate than the rest of the party these days and too disorganized due to the wide array of complex international issues facing us now. It will take, I'm guessing, the Midterms and the next Presidential election before they are able to sort this out and put the Tea Party down (the Tea Party may appear dominant, but they can't maintain power - they are too far out of the mainstream to be viable for long but they are significant enough to derail any serious attempt by Republicans to regain the Senate or elect a President - especially if Clinton runs given her close to 70% national approval rating). They'll do well in House elections in the Midterms and raise a ruckus in the Senate elections where Democrats will maintain control. They'll use the House to influence the next Presidential race but that is bad news for Republicans as the general public seems rather put off by them. If Hillary runs, as she almost certainly will, serious Republicans will shy away from the fight as she'd be nearly impossible to beat even if the Republicans were unified and, as a result, the Tea Party will likely make one final grand spectacle of themselves in that race only to see Clinton win in a landslide.
Assuming this plays out as I outlined, I'd guess that ambitious, serious Republicans will finally have the power to sideline Tea Partiers after Clinton's win. Of course, then they'll have to shore up their support and reunify the party while Hillary will likely have a distinguished first term that guarantees her a second. Republicans are going to be in the woods for awhile - this is one of the problems (though to me it's a good thing in this instance) with a 2-party system. Each of the two parties is so large that they have to accommodate several different ideological wings that would be separate parties in a multiparty democracy. When you have an upstart insurgent faction in a two party system, especially a radical one that is on the far right or left, they can cause a decade long power struggle quite easily. This has happened to Democrats before (Carter -> Mondale, anyone?) and Republicans... just looks like its Republicans' turn again.
Obama may be divisive, but that's more representative of the deep divide within the American public than a reflection of his policies.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
