• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Post-2012 Election Thoughts

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This was not a re-aligning election. Control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives remained unchanged. Should that situation result in a bad outcome, the prospect of a re-aligning election in the future, perhaps as early as 2016, would increase.

This was largely a cyclical election driven by the state of the economy and perceptions about its future trajectory. The economy was the most important issue cited in the exit polling, with chronic unemployment (the need for job creation) the most prominently cited economic issue. Had the economy shown indications of fresh deterioration, the electoral outcome would likely have differed. Instead, the economic data in the closing weeks of the campaign reflected recovery. The first Q3 GDP figure released at the end of October showed a modest pickup in growth. The October Employment Situation report showed an increase in job creation. A host of consumer sentiment surveys taken during October revealed rising consumer confidence at levels exceeding those that preceded the financial crisis and recession. That growing consumer confidence was reflected in exit polling data showing voters felt that the economy was improving.

The “Tea Party” movement was dealt a significant setback. That movement was largely a fad driven by a negative economic climate and deep-seated pessimism. However, anger and frustration are not the building blocks of enduring political coalitions. The movement pushed beyond positions that are embraced by a sufficient share of the public to allow for political viability. If 2010 represented the rise of the Tea Party, 2012 represented at least the beginning of its decline. Its role in 2014 will very likely be further marginalized.

Beyond the cyclical component, there is a growing structural threat to the Republican Party’s ability to win and retain the White House. There is a risk that some of the states that have recently gone blue could become blue on a more permanent basis, with some exceptions. Sociocultural (largely demographic) forces, economic forces, changes in technology, and the geopolitical balance of power all shape the nation’s structural political environment.

The biggest demographic changes underway in the U.S. involve an aging population and a diversification of the nation’s population (with Hispanics representing the segment enjoying the fastest relative growth). These are readily predictable and high confidence developments. Pollsters and political leaders who ignore them do so at their own peril.

Technology, including the introduction of early voting, has reduced barriers to voting that hobbled elections with low turnout. Those gains will not be reinforced. They will likely expand to other states.

Geopolitically, neoconservative myths of U.S. preeminence have already been shattered. The U.S. remains the world’s strongest power, but economic realities of a rising China, among other fast-growing states, indicate that its relative power will decline in coming decades. Issues ranging from the nation’s stagnant educational attainment to fiscal challenges amplify the impact of that evolution.

Political parties do not enjoy the luxury of being immune to the consequences of the major forces described above. They operate within that environment. Their ability to leverage that context can allow them to build long-periods of dominance. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties have enjoyed such periods in the past. Their unwillingness or inability to adapt can doom them to long periods of irrelevance.

In that context, the Republican Party faces perhaps the greater present challenge. It must translate its traditional message of individual freedom and economic opportunity to serve that evolving environment. The message must be cast in positive terms, not negative ones.

Growing diversity can threaten stability. One has seen the consequences in a number of countries where shifting demographic trends or a decline in authoritarian power has renewed longstanding sectarian conflicts. Some conservative pundits are already latching onto that dark perspective. Joel B. Pollak of Breitbart.comcalled for a new culture war.

However, that’s neither the American tradition nor the U.S. experience. Tolerance is a principle at the foundation of some of the nation's most hallowed rights. The American experience has demonstrated that increased tolerance in the face of growing diversity can sustain stability. Women’s suffrage and Civil Rights have provided examples of the power increased tolerance can have in promoting a cohesive society. The future expansion of the franchise of marriage to same sex couples will be consistent with the positive American experience.

Hispanics will play an increasingly instrumental role in shifting the balance of political power. To be viable, political coalitions will need to include a significant share of the Hispanic vote. The demographic developments have doomed the zero tolerance approach to immigration policy. Immigration policy was inconsequential in the exit polling, but it mattered deeply to the nation’s growing Hispanic population. A zero tolerance immigration approach will provide little political returns, but it could risk making the Hispanic voting gap a long-enduring one. If so, the Republican Party could find itself increasingly unable to build the broad coalitions necessary to win the White House, much less retain it for long periods of time barring a serious crisis that temporarily makes such factors less important.

Higher voter turnout is likely here to stay, though turnout will vary from election cycle to election cycle. Relying on low-turnout models or attempts to erect barriers to turnout will undermine prospects of electoral success.

In the geopolitical and fiscal context, the nation’s foreign policy will need to be more focused. The limits to its power are real, as they have always been. The national interest and balance of power will be key foundations on which a sustainable foreign policy can be developed and maintained.

Republicans still enjoy a deep roster of future Presidential candidates. They currently hold 30 of the nation’s 50 governorships. The pragmatic, frequently non-ideological, results-oriented problem-solving approach undertaken by their most successful governors can provide a road map for navigating the big changes in the nation’s political environment.

In general, the nation seeks problem-solvers, not prophets for its leaders. The nation is still yearning for results. It has not yet made a final decision on who is best able to do so. It has hedged its bet by re-electing the President, a Democratic majority in the Senate, and a Republican majority in the House. As a result, 2012 was not a re-aligning election, but a future one—perhaps as early as 2016—might be.
 
As a result, 2012 was not a re-aligning election, but a future one—perhaps as early as 2016—might be.

But but I thought the righties have said the country will be destroyed by 2016 if Obama is re-elected? How can you look towards 2016 when America will be destroyed by then?
 
We're screwed.
 
The Republican party left too many people at the station, which is why Romney never had a chance.
 
We're screwed.

If my memory serves me correctly, you are also out a $1000 from your bet that Romney would win :lamo
 
If my memory serves me correctly, you are also out a $1000 from your bet that Romney would win :lamo

One of us has a failing memory, for sure. If I made that bet, someone better come get their money, because I may not be able to afford it for long. :rofl

Still doesn't take away from the fact that we're screwed.
 
One of us has a failing memory, for sure.

Well hopefully yours doesn't get worse than it already is. Hopefully you won't miss that $1000 lol.
 
put simply, it's past time for democrats and republicans to work together, because we have critical problems that haven't been touched due to partisan teamsports. we're all going to have to lose on some issues. it will suck, but the current dynamic is not working. it's time to nation build.
 
One of us has a failing memory, for sure. If I made that bet, someone better come get their money, because I may not be able to afford it for long. :rofl

Still doesn't take away from the fact that we're screwed.

Here is what you DON'T get. We were going to be screwed no matter who won. Romney wasn't going to be any different than Obama. People are not defined by the BS they shovel at you, but by what they do. But that didn't stop you from voting for someone whose actions (not words, ACTIONS) were even more Liberal than Obama's. Why? Because he had an "R" next to his name, and for no other reason than that. The Republican party's ideology has become something, not to be shared, but to be whored out to the highest bidder.

Until people realize that the 2 party system is a con job on the American people, and then ACT ACCORDINGLY, we will continue to be screwed.

Yes, Virginia, Republicans ARE hypocrites who put party before both ideology and country.
 
We're screwed.

That's extremely pessimistic. I would like to think Americans are capable of overcoming anything. The status quo election result sends a clear message, go back to DC and get to work. Like a judge ordering a jury back into the jury room.

1) The GOP was told, NO! You can't have what you want, no matter how many threats and dire warnings of calamity.

2) The Democratic party was told, You must work with the strongly conservative House of Representatives. Which means tightening of belts across the board.

3) Akin and Mourdock's defeat also says the GOP must vet their candidates better.


Lastly, the OP was great, well said.
 
That's extremely pessimistic. I would like to think Americans are capable of overcoming anything. The status quo election result sends a clear message, go back to DC and get to work. Like a judge ordering a jury back into the jury room.

1) The GOP was told, NO! You can't have what you want, no matter how many threats and dire warnings of calamity.

2) The Democratic party was told, You must work with the strongly conservative House of Representatives. Which means tightening of belts across the board.

3) Akin and Mourdock's defeat also says the GOP must vet their candidates better.


Lastly, the OP was great, well said.


Great post from Don as usual, but wanted to point this one out. It's short, but one of the better even keeled responses to the election results.
 
Millions of dollars were spend for more of the same.

Ryan losses the VP but keeps his Rep seat. Now theres confidence for you.

No apparent movement on this site nor any likely in Congress.

What are we doing to ourselves?
 
Great post Don. Long read and I disagree with some of your ideas(I would never describe the republican party as the party of personal freedom for example), but an interesting viewpoint. As you mentioned the Tea Party, do you think the republican party will try and distance themselves from the Tea Party going forward?
 
To elaborate on my thread. It seems that in the sort term nothing has changed. Those that are entrenched on one side or the other will stubbornly remain so seeing the other army as always at fault. it like WWI trench warfare (and that really worked out well too)

Compromise is what made this country great. Its the only way to move forward. Sitting with your fingers up your butt and saying its my way or the highway (BOTH SIDES) is defeatist and moronic. You are suppose to be adults start acting like them.

For those of you in business. Is this the way you operate on the job. No I won't because I don't like you or you stupid plan? I bet

Get up off your ass find common ground and work on finding more.

Also this bull**** of he must go first no he has to no him. You know how childish that sounds. Maybe you need to take a nap in your crib. BOTH SIDES.

Make a list of things that need to be done. Openly talk about them without bias and see what happens. You will be amazed at what you find.

Grow up.
 
Great post Don. Long read and I disagree with some of your ideas(I would never describe the republican party as the party of personal freedom for example), but an interesting viewpoint.

Duly noted that liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans have different conceptions of personal freedom. The key test for either Party is to be able to put together a sufficiently broad coalition to win elections. Right now, the Republican Party faces growing headwinds from the structural issues e.g., changing demographics, that require its adaptation to the realities presented by those structural factors.

The Tea Party offered a false sense of security with its rigid ideological positions. Its influence in 2010 election cycle offered temptation, even as closer inspection revealed special circumstances from the nation's coming out of its deep economic crisis played a role. Its views are outside the Mainstream, even if it tries to cloak them in language referring to the constitution, liberty and fiscal responsibility. One can't interpret the constitution in a fashion that people's fundamental rights are perceived to be treated in an unequal fashion. One can't define liberty in a fashion that is exclusive. One can't define fiscal responsibility in a fashion the requires the nation to immediately enter a wrenching debt crisis as would have occurred had the debt ceiling not been increased. The actual base of support for the Tea Party's positions is too narrow to be politically viable for any sustained period of time. 2012 proved to be beyond its "expiration date," and its favored candidates were defeated, even in GOP-leaning states.

A particular case in point concerns the Missouri and Indiana Senate races. In both states, the GOP should have enjoyed a competitive advantage given those states' political dynamics. Pro-life candidates have enjoyed electoral success in those states. Pro-life and pro-choice positions are within the political mainstream, in general. The difference is that the two Tea Party candidates pushed the pro-life position to absurd ends. In Missouri, the candidate made a claim about rape and pregnancy that has no scientific basis whatsoever. In Indiana, the candidate cast pregnancy relating from rape in terms of a "gift from God." Their definitions were offensive and they fell outside the tradtional parameters of the pro-life position, which makes exceptions for rape, incest, preserving the life of the mother (under the implicit recognition their are very real limits when it comes to lawmaking; in any case, Roe v. Wade is settled law and that is not going to change). As a result, the two candidates merely succeeded in offending people and giving literal substance to the narrative of a "war on women." Not surprisingly, they were rejected by voters who fall both in the pro-choice and pro-life camps.

As you mentioned the Tea Party, do you think the republican party will try and distance themselves from the Tea Party going forward?

If the Party seeks to rebuild some of the competitiveness it has recently lost and if it seeks to adapt to the changing structural realities, it will need to do so. It needs to broaden its base of support. It also can ill-afford to avoid becoming more competitive in large segments of the country i.e., the West Coast, the Northeast, etc. Greater flexibility/pragmatism, policy creativity, and responsiveness to an increasingly diverse population will be needed. The Tea Party's rigidity would only further complicate that task, which may require more than one election cycle to be achieved (if the post-1960s era experience prior to President Clinton's election in 1992 for the Democratic Party is relevant). Such a path to renewal might not necessarily be smooth, as the various factions, including Tea Party elements, fight to retain influence.

Ultimately, I believe a vigorous two party system offers better long-term policy prospects than one that is dominated by a single party. Whether in industry (in the case of monopolies or near-monopolies) or in politics (single-party dominated countries), an absence of competition can lead to reduced policy innovation and stagnation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom