patrick.net

Like a teabag that just wont flush.

I had a sneaking suspicion that Cantor's defeat would be used as "proof" that the tea party was alive and well.

First of all, let me say that as a Democrat I am delighted by Cantor's defeat and pleased that Brat was chosen and here's the reason why. This shouldn't be a big shocker BTW in regards to my position on the GOP in general.

As soon as I saw why Cantor lost- which is being reported as being due to his supposedly "liberal" position on immigration- the first thing that went through my head was that the GOP and the tea party has clearly totally forgotten why they lost both the 2008 and 2012 elections: Its because of the demographics, and furthermore, the fact that the GOP's position on immigration has been displeasing to the fast-growing immigrant population in the US, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats in presidential elections.

So here we have yet another far-right leaning conservative politician who takes an unpopular position ( for immigrants) on immigration which means two things:

A: The GOP won't do anything in regards to immigration which will further demonstrate to immigrants they aren't the party for them.

B: Immigrants will then vote for Democrats in even greater numbers, far outstripping the ranks of the GOP's base and tea party. Even if 100% of that base votes- as they pretty much did in 2012- they will lose once more and in 2016 by even greater percentages.

Lastly, this means that the GOP will have to spend an even greater amount of their time and energy on their own party's inner-turmoil versus focusing on Democrats. Their party has been weakened by the tea party considerably and with that comes a weak message, less decisiveness and further alienation from the majority of the voting populace.

So in the end this is a big win for Democrats and at the same time further proof to the GOP that the tea party is creating a lot of problems for them and hence why my initial claim still remains intact.

Call it Crazy says

Don't believe everything you read... Cantor's loss WASN'T because of the immigration issue "as reported"...

I saw that the TSA was also an issue

edvard2 says

Even if 100% of that base votes- as they pretty much did in 2012- they will lose once more and in 2016 by even greater percentages.

Good analysis but consider in an off election like 2010 there is lower turnout and activists tend to vote in higher numbers

smaulgld says

Good analysis but consider in an off election like 2010 there is lower turnout and activists tend to vote in higher numbers

I was referring more to the 2016 Presidential elections. But as for the fall, well as mentioned the GOP is in disarray and though the tea party might have scored a few points that only means the GOP has lost focus.

smaulgld says

like 2010 there is lower turnout and activists tend to vote in higher numbers...

And often!

smaulgld says

Don't believe everything you read... Cantor's loss WASN'T because of the immigration issue "as reported"...

Actually it was reported as such in FOX news and so if all things conservative media related must surely be the truth to conservatives then the old hat trick of blaming the "left wing media" won't work on this one. The right wing media is reporting this as well...

edvard2 says

smaulgld says

Don't believe everything you read... Cantor's loss WASN'T because of the immigration issue "as reported"...

Actually it was reported as such in FOX news and so if all things conservative media related must surely be the truth to conservatives then the old hat trick of blaming the "left wing media" won't work on this one. The right wing media is reporting this as well...

That was callitcrazy-not my comment!

My point is there were perhaps multiple reasons for Cantor's loss, primarily his seat is a conservative one and Cantor is not seen as a true conservative.

edvard2 says

I was referring more to the 2016 Presidential elections. But as for the fall, well as mentioned the GOP is in disarray and though the tea party might have scored a few points that only means the GOP has lost focus.

Too early to comment on how events today will impact 2016 elections.

smaulgld says

That was callitcrazy-not my comment!

yes... sorry about that.smaulgld says

Too early to comment on how events today will impact 2016 elections.

Oh I don't think it is. The demographic math hasn't changed and the GOP's stance on issues that would have potentially garnered more support from those groups hasn't changed and with the election of a high ranking Republican with an anti-immigration stance that sends very clear message to immigrant groups. As far as 2016 is concerned the GOP has lost already.

edvard2 says

I don't think it is. The demographic math hasn't changed and the GOP's stance on issues that would have potentially garnered more support from those groups hasn't changed and with the election of a high ranking Republican with an anti-immigration stance that sends very clear message to immigrant groups

Correct if you look at it from a macro level and assume the current issues are the ones that will matter in 2016. That however is an assumption that can be proven faulty based on subsequent events (war, economy, scandals, intervening policies/legislation that work or fail etc) Immigration reform may be off the table by 2016 either through legislation or other superseding concerns and not be an issue at all, or one that favors one party over the other or that reverses which party benefits most from the issue.

edvard2 says

As far as 2016 is concerned the GOP has lost already.

Like saying George Bush Senior had the 1992 election sealed after the Gulf War ended in February 1991.

That war was a far bigger event than immigration reform and was far closer to the election than immigration reform is to 2016 yet George Bush senior lost handily (who predicted "read my lips" would become an issue or Ross Perot and the rise of Bill Clinton in Feb 1991?)

A booting of a Republican congressman who also happens to be the majority leader while significant won't have a direct impact on the 2016 elections but it will put into motion a series of changes and events that will influence the 2016 election but they are no way knowable today.

smaulgld says

Immigration reform may be off the table by then either through legislation or other concerns and not be an issue at all

As the world goes through re balancing and Mexico grows because of this I wonder if the immigration thing will take care of itself?

smaulgld says

Correct if you look at it from a macro level and assume the current issues are the ones that will matter in 2016.

Well, its safe to say that in 2012 the very same reasons for the GOP losing as the same as today. This is a very broad, far-reaching, historical trend in terms of the US population that has taken the GOP by surprise. The issue is that the GOP spent way too long catering almost exclusively to conservatives- and in particular social conservatives - which are a group that is shrinking.

So with that therein lies the reason the chances of a GOP win in 2016 becomes less likely and even more so with outside interests via the tea party trying to force the GOP into even more conservative positions that are also distasteful to the needed demographics the GOP needs in order to win.

indigenous says

As the world goes through re balancing and Mexico grows because of this I wonder if the immigration thing will take care of itself?

exactly- who knows what the view on immigration will be in 2016?

smaulgld says

Like saying George Bush Senior had the 1992 election sealed after the Gulf War ended in February 1991.

Guess I'm beating the drum the same here but in 1992 the US was a very different country. The same general population trends were not the same and thus 1992 has nothing to do with today or 2016.

edvard2 says

This is a very broad, far-reaching, historical trend in terms of the US population that has taken the GOP by surprise. The issue is that the GOP spent way too long catering almost exclusively to conservatives- and in particular social conservatives - which are a group that is shrinking.

And that is why the republican party will be dragged into spouting pseudo libertarian platitudes that appeal to social liberals

smaulgld says

exactly- who knows what the view on immigration will be in 2016?

I think the point is being missed. Its not necessarily about actual immigration but the attitude that the GOP has of it, and that is what matters to legal immigrants, whom compose of a large and growing voting block. Its rather clear that nothing will get done by the GOP on immigration and if they continue to elect the likes of Brat with his opinions of immigration then the assumption can be made that immigrants will once more turn away from the GOP.

edvard2 says

Guess I'm beating the drum the same here but in 1992 the US was a very different country. The same general population trends were not the same and thus 1992 has nothing to do with today or 2016.

Yes, if your prediction is a based solely on demographics. My analysis is based on issues changing.
Keep in mind demographics and party line voting also change.
African Americans moved from the Republican party of Lincoln to the Democratic party of LBJ (google "lbj civil rights act I'll have those voting for us") Republicans made massive inroads with Dixiecrats under Nixon and Reagan. Clinton won many of them back.

Between now and 2016 the traditional republican and democratic bases may change and independents may shift their allegances or they may be a third party.
Far too early to say a 2016 electorate is locked up

smaulgld says

And that is why the republican party will be dragged into spouting pseudo libertarian platitudes that appeal to social liberals

That has already been tried. The tea party was "supposed" to be all about libertarianism before it rapidly fell into something that had a think outer shell that proclaimed libertarian ideals but in reality was an example of very far-right leaning ideology. The GOP's stance on libertarian ideas was essentially discredited as a result.

edvard2 says

Its not necessarily about actual immigration but the attitude that the GOP has of it, and that is what matters to legal immigrants, whom compose of a large and growing voting block. Its rather clear that nothing will get done by the GOP on immigration and if they continue to elect the likes of Brat with his opinions of immigration then the assumption can be made that immigrants will once more turn away from the GOP.

Right but the assumption is that Brat, the GOP and the electorate will not change at all between now and 2016. Far more likely that all change then they remain the same. The republican view may be forced to change by a number of events or it may become a discredited view, a non issue or a populist view. There is no way I can state that Cantor getting booted means the democrats win in 2016 or the Republicans lose in 2016

And then there is that connection between the Las Vegas shooters, the Miller's, and the Tea Party...that can't be good advertising.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/09/las-vegas-shooting-spree-product-tea-party-ideology.html

edvard2 says

attitude that the GOP has of it

Hard to define a country without borders.

What exacerbates this is Calif subsidizing the immigrants, destroying jobs because the immigrants have an unfair advantage.

smaulgld says

Between now and 2016 the traditional republican and democratic bases may change and independents may shift their allegances or they may be a third party.

Far too early to say a 2016 electorate is locked up

I suppose we will have to see. But traditional bases do not change overnight. The Democratic base is probably stronger than it ever has. The GOP base is shrinking and since the party is now in turmoil with a lack of a core message there is little reason to see their base strengthen.

I suppose I am just amazed at the GOP's inability to grasp the obvious, which is that they will HAVE to moderate their voice if they care to win in the future. I don't mean suddenly become liberals, but dial it back a bit- as in maybe dial it back to the 1980's or even early 90's. The party still thinks they can win primarily going after uber-conservatives while ignoring the rest. 2008 SHOULD have been something they learned from and if not, 2012 should have made things ridiculously clear and in fact, a lot of the politicians in that party were making such claims. But here they are again, going right back to their little holes and preaching far-right politics to a shrinking base and a growing demographic whom finds such rhetoric distasteful and hence its 2016 for them to lose and if they do, then they will surely... SURELY get the message then... but probably not.

edvard2 says

That has already been tried. The tea party was "supposed" to be all about libertarianism before it rapidly fell into something that had a think outer shell that proclaimed libertarian ideals but in reality was an example of very far-right leaning ideology. The GOP's stance on libertarian ideas was essentially discredited as a result.

Republicans spout a libertarian brand of politics from time to time. The last two times they pushed it to the front of their platforms-they were split Goldwater -failed Reagan success.
They are set to push it out again in 2014-2016 with Rand Paul an other libertarian leaning pols.

The libertarian angle will bring in anti NSA spying anti foreign military aggression (Syria , Afganistan, Guantanomo)-issues that are not associated with the tea party. It's not where the Republican party is but MAY be in 2016. Again can't begin to predict 2016- just analyze what MIGHT happen.

indigenous says

What exacerbates this is Calif subsidizing the immigrants, destroying jobs because the immigrants have an unfair advantage.

There you go... its that exact same attitude that turns off immigrant groups and makes them vote for Democrats.

smaulgld says

They are set to push it out again in 2014-2016 with Rand Paul an other libertarian leaning pols.

Its going to take a LOT more than the GOP spouting off meaningless libertarian rhetoric for them to change anyone's minds. As I said, the tea party basically ruined that idea for them by making a farce out of it. Thus if the GOP wants to try that libertarian angle again nobody will take them seriously. It will be seen as nothing more than a desperate ploy to get people to ignore their actual stances on conservative politics.

edvard2 says

I suppose we will have to see. But traditional bases do not change overnight. The Democratic base is probably stronger than it ever has. The GOP base is shrinking and since the party is now in turmoil with a lack of a core message there is little reason to see their base strengthen.

Actually I think both parties have weak support. What does it mean to be either?

The republican establishment supports the Neocon/war mongering element and social conservatism which does not have majority support.

The democratic establishment supports big government intervention in everything (drug war, foreign intervention, NSA spying) which does not have majority support.

edvard2 says

There you go... its that exact same attitude that turns off immigrant groups and makes them vote for Democrats

So what.

I would contend that the real problem with the republicans is alloying themselves to this sort of mentality. Which might be the case with Cantor?

Yea there has to be more compromise on the beltway but the Republicans have to know who they are.

They have to be like Eisenhower or Coolidge.

edvard2 says

As I said, the tea party basically ruined that idea for them by making a farce out of it. Thus if the GOP wants to try that libertarian angle again nobody will take them seriously.

YOU won't take them seriously but they won't be courting your vote. The fake libertarian propaganda will be aimed at disaffected republicans, democrats and independents. Even in a Presidential election only half the people eligible to vote do so. Most of them as has been pointed by many here are "low information voters". You over estimate the intelligence of the electorate to fall for propaganda and underestimate the powers of manipulation that both parties have at their disposal.

Right now democrats are probably defined by Hillary Clinton which represents a sort of hope for a restoration of better times.

This is a powerful meme but will it stand up to scrutiny 2 years from now? If Hillary doesn't run or loses primaries can the Democrats redefine themselves with out Hillary?

The Republicans right now are defined by the remnants of George Bush and part tea party.

in 2016 George Bush will be long forgotten, if the tea party dies then there is possibility for a newly defined republican party. If the tea party lives it may be rejuvenated which may help or hurt it.

Will the "anti Hillary" party along be enough to boost Republican chances in 2016?

Again, too many unknowns.

indigenous says

So what.

Its only the reason the GOP Lost in 2012, so yeah... so what...smaulgld says

The fake libertarian propaganda will be aimed at disaffected republicans, democrats and independents.

Let's get real for a second. The only people who would even consider buying a load of libertarian bullshit from the GOP would be other GOP voters. Why would it be any different than it is now? Democratic voters wouldn't touch a GOP politician with a 10 foot pole and independents will know better after the tea party and its claim to being libertarian.

To get to the bottom of this, you should only believe the wingless media segment.

edvard2 says

smaulgld says

Don't believe everything you read... Cantor's loss WASN'T because of the immigration issue "as reported"...

Actually it was reported as such in FOX news and so if all things conservative media related must surely be the truth to conservatives then the old hat trick of blaming the "left wing media" won't work on this one. The right wing media is reporting this as well...

Leave it to the liberal left to fuck up a mouse click.

smaulgld says

That was callitcrazy-not my comment!

edvard2 says

Let's get real for a second. The only people who would even consider buying a load of libertarian bullshit from the GOP would be other GOP voters. Why would it be any different than it is now? Democratic voters wouldn't touch a GOP politician with a 10 foot pole and independents will know better after the tea party and its claim to being libertarian

In analyzing rather than cheerleading it's best not to be conclusionary and absolutist- Politics makes strange bedfellows.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Republican-Rand-Paul-fires-up-a-Berkeley-crowd-5332740.php

SoftShell says

Leave it to the liberal left to fuck up a mouse click.

Do you have anything intelligent to add to the debate? Nope. Didn't think so...

smaulgld says

In analyzing rather than cheerleading it's best not to be conclusionary and absolutist- Politics makes strange bedfellows.

My conclusion on this as I think we've both made our points is that what matters is the big picture. The GOP needs to change and so so dramatically. So far they have not in the least and actually seem to be going th other way. The Democrat's formula is clearly working in regards to getting the vote and hence no need for them to change. As such I fail to really see any compelling evidence that there will be any meaningful difference between the two parties come 2016. As such my bets will remain for the Democrats. That's basically it. Of course I could be totally wrong. But I feel fairly comfortable with my opinions as of late.

edvard2 says

The tea party was "supposed" to be all about libertarianism before it rapidly fell into something that had a think outer shell that proclaimed libertarian ideals but in reality was an example of very far-right leaning ideology.

Yes, the irony is that the Tea Party should love immigration, if they really had the libertarian ideals they claim to have and cared about our economy as much as they claim:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-tea-party-should-favor-immigration-2014-06-11?link=MW_story_latest_news

They don't, of course, because most of them are astro-turfed hacks.

Call it Crazy says

Or, will people just vote for her because she could be the "First female president"??

They might

edvard2 says

The GOP needs to change and so so dramatically. So far they have not in the least and actually seem to be going th other way. The Democrat's formula is clearly working in regards to getting the vote and hence no need for them to change. As such I fail to really see any compelling evidence that there will be any meaningful difference between the two parties come 2016.

Last elections in 2010 and 2012 the Democrats lost the house. How is that being effective? Neither party is a shoo in for 2014 or 2016