Republican fears of historic Obama landslide unleash civil war ....

[Laila]

... for the future of the party

Senior Republicans believe that John McCain is doomed to a landslide defeat which will hand Barack Obama more political power than any president in a generation.

Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate.

They believe he will be powerful enough to remake the American political landscape with even more ease than Ronald Reagan did in 1980.

The prospect of an electoral rout has unleashed a bitter bout of recriminations both within the McCain campaign and the wider conservative movement, over who is to blame and what should be done to salvage the party's future.

Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats which are up for grabs on the same day.

Their fear is that Democrat candidates riding on Mr Obama's popularity may win the nine extra seats they need in the Senate to give them unfettered power in Congress.

Republican fears of historic Obama landslide unleash civil war for the future of the party - Telegraph

'Civil war'
A bit melodramatic isn't it?
Democrat Government ... can't be any worse than the last 8 years can it?
Besides if Obama screws up, we all know he'd be gone by the next election.

 

[1069]

Yeeheehee! I'm getting so excited about this election!!
This is going to be so awesome!

:2party::ind:

 

[Laila]

I'll throw my own mini party over this side of the ocean when Obama wins
Gonna be fun waving a US flag again

 

[ADK_Forever]

... for the future of the party

Democrat Government ... can't be any worse than the last 8 years can it?

Another prediction: Obama will earn the respect and praise of leading Repubs in Congress for his stewardship of our country.

After the way Repubs have gutted our country, and Constitution, over the last 8 years it is rather satisfying to see them eating their own. :rofl :rofl :rofl

Obama with 381 electoral votes and 60 Senators!!! Swwwwwweeeeeet!

 

[Laila]

Later on in the article they liken this to Conservative party in UK

More profoundly, it sparked the first salvoes in a Republican civil war with echoes of Tory infighting during their years in the political wilderness.

One wing believes the party has to emulate David Cameron, by adapting the issues to fight on and the positions they hold, while the other believes that a back to basics approach will reconnect with heartland voters and ensure success. Modernisers fear that would leave Republicans marginalised, like the Tories were during the Iain Duncan Smith years, condemning them to opposition for a decade

In-fighting and disorganisation not to mention a hatred of anything right [after Thatcher] ensured Tories did not touch Government for nearly a decade but they are gonna be making a comeback next elections - Would be great if its Republicans that take a backseat this time.

 

[cascadian]

If current polling holds true, I think the electoral vote will be a landslide, but the popular vote won't be that amazing. The thing that is scariest to them is probably losing congressional seats at the same time.

I remember that Clinton came into power with a Democratic congress, but even then he couldn't get a healthcare package through and the 'Pubs siezed control of the congress the very next election. And how did they do it? By promising to cut government waste and increase accountability.

Here's to hoping that they respond by making war mongers and social conservatives take a back seat and returning to an emphasis on fiscal conservatism. Not that I want them to take back Congress, I just think that element of conservatism is the only one I can respect.

 

[Laila]

If current polling holds true, I think the electoral vote will be a landslide, but the popular vote won't be that amazing. The thing that is scariest to them is probably losing congressional seats at the same time.

Understandable, not only will they lose the bid for presidency but also any power they had within congress at the same time. Thats a double whammy. They'll get over it.
Defeat is needed for a party tho a Government controlled by 1 party can have dangerous consequences but republicans or Americans for that matter can vote for a repub congress can't they? to keep a 'check' on Obama if you will

 

[cascadian]

Understandable, not only will they lose the bid for presidency but also any power they had within congress at the same time. Thats a double whammy. They'll get over it.
Defeat is needed for a party tho a Government controlled by 1 party can have dangerous consequences but republicans or Americans for that matter can vote for a repub congress can't they? to keep a 'check' on Obama if you will

Well, I'm not going to vote republican for that reason alone. Heh-heh. But I am confident that a united minority can generally curb excessive self aborption by the majority.

I think 9/11 was a unique event that broke down the unity of the Democratic minority on certain issues that was pretty worrisome. On the whole though, I'm not too worried. Even with a Democratic majority, the chances of most of Obama's agenda going through aren't really all that great, IMO.

Of course, I would love to see some of his ideas in action, I just don't think Republican voters need to run for hills. Contrary to the massive fear mongering that's been done to whip up the base, they probably won't see massive changes by the time anything gets passed by congress.

 

[Laila]

I hope Obama puts a new face on US, the first thing that pops in many heads when thinking of US is Bush. Not very good.
Its going to be veryyy interesting the next 4 years - a change in Government will do your country's science community good.
Stem cell might finally get support from Government after being held back due to refusal of federal funding.

 

[Iriemon]

It will be interesting to see how the Republican party reacts to a major defeat in 2008 (assuming they suffer one) following a major defeat in 2006. In two years they will have lost control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.

I'd speculate that you'll see the neocon element of the party quashed. The Republicans have successfully won elections under Reagan Bush and Bush pandering tax cuts; but we have seen that that is no panacea against economic problems and we have a nation now burdened with $10 trillion in debt; which requires hundreds of billions in interest cost every year. The luster of promising tax cuts will still have appeal, but less.

More fundamentally, demographics do not favor Republican tax/economic policies. By far the biggest Govt programs are SS/medicare. We spend more than a third of the budget on seniors. We spend too much. Yet with the baby boomers retiring, SS/medicare is going to become more sacrosant. The libertarian/small government wing of the party isn't going to get more traction with the boomers retiring.

Finally, you have the "values" religious wing of the party. This has always been the most vocal wing of the party, its strongest base. With the boomers getting older and the nation becoming more religious, this will probably remain a strong fundamental part of the base, especially if Dems start liberally catering to the more fringe social aspects of their base.

I think you'll see a less neocon, less libertarian but strong values approach by the party in the future. Just speculation.

 

[ADK_Forever]

It will be interesting to see how the Republican party reacts to a major defeat in 2008 (assuming they suffer one) following a major defeat in 2006. In two years they will have lost control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.

I heard higher barriers are being installed on all bridges and exposed cliffs. :mrgreen:

 

[Laila]

I think you'll see a less neocon, less libertarian but strong values approach by the party in the future. Just speculation.

A strong democrat victory will send the Republicans into a political mess, they will alienate their moderate and independent supporters if they dare to choose Palin as a candidate in next election and already have by choosing her as a VP. Not to mention the fact that they are losing ground in old 'red states' implies they need to seriously rethink their positions/policies. If they don't, they risk being the party full of religious fanatics who have support in only a few die hard states. Just an opinion

 

[cascadian]

Finally, you have the "values" religious wing of the party. This has always been the most vocal wing of the party, its strongest base. With the boomers getting older and the nation becoming more religious, this will probably remain a strong fundamental part of the base, especially if Dems start liberally catering to the more fringe social aspects of their base.

I personally doubt most boomers are going to get any more socially conservative than they are already.

Overall I think social conservatism (in a relative sense) is on the decline. Largely what we've seen is just increasing organization, vocalization and desperation as the social conservatives sense that they are losing ground.

The only thing that seems able to reverse the course is serious political and economic unrest like you see in developing countries.

Yes, Social Security will probably remain untouchable, but that's nothing new.

 

[tryreading]

A strong democrat victory will send the Republicans into a political mess, they will alienate their moderate and independent supporters if they dare to choose Palin as a candidate in next election and already have by choosing her as a VP. Not to mention the fact that they are losing ground in old 'red states' implies they need to seriously rethink their positions/policies. If they don't, they risk being the party full of religious fanatics who have support in only a few die hard states. Just an opinion

Just my opinion, but this will be it for Palin nationally, if McCain loses. There will be no place for her in any White House to come. If McCain loses, she will be forgotten, the Republicans will want to wash their hands of her. Course, she could be voted into Congress at some point by her Alaska constituents.

 

[jfuh]

It will be interesting to see how the Republican party reacts to a major defeat in 2008 (assuming they suffer one) following a major defeat in 2006. In two years they will have lost control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.

I'd speculate that you'll see the neocon element of the party quashed. The Republicans have successfully won elections under Reagan Bush and Bush pandering tax cuts; but we have seen that that is no panacea against economic problems and we have a nation now burdened with $10 trillion in debt; which requires hundreds of billions in interest cost every year. The luster of promising tax cuts will still have appeal, but less.

More fundamentally, demographics do not favor Republican tax/economic policies. By far the biggest Govt programs are SS/medicare. We spend more than a third of the budget on seniors. We spend too much. Yet with the baby boomers retiring, SS/medicare is going to become more sacrosant. The libertarian/small government wing of the party isn't going to get more traction with the boomers retiring.

Finally, you have the "values" religious wing of the party. This has always been the most vocal wing of the party, its strongest base. With the boomers getting older and the nation becoming more religious, this will probably remain a strong fundamental part of the base, especially if Dems start liberally catering to the more fringe social aspects of their base.

I think you'll see a less neocon, less libertarian but strong values approach by the party in the future. Just speculation.

To hell with the "values" religious wing of the gop, they can go **** themselves. I don't need government teaching me values of one specific religious sect.
It's funny how republicans always scream "smaller government" when they are up for election yet when they take power are anything but. How they scream government doesn't work get elected go **** things up and then turn around and say - you see, it doesn't work.

 

[Iriemon]

Just my opinion, but this will be it for Palin nationally, if McCain loses. There will be no place for her in any White House to come. If McCain loses, she will be forgotten, the Republicans will want to wash their hands of her. Course, she could be voted into Congress at some point by her Alaska constituents.

Blithely following the political trail hacked out by that other notable GOP VP pick, Dan Quayle.

 

[Iriemon]

To hell with the "values" religious wing of the gop, they can go **** themselves. I don't need government teaching me values of one specific religious sect.
It's funny how republicans always scream "smaller government" when they are up for election yet when they take power are anything but. How they scream government doesn't work get elected go **** things up and then turn around and say - you see, it doesn't work.

I wasn't vouching for it; just speculating on the course of future GOP politics if they suffer a major defeat this election, as appears likely.

I don't think the "values" element of the party will disappear, or even be substantially weakened, and may be stregnthened. These attitudes are held by the religous base (mostly) for whom it constitutes their core beliefs, and the loss of an election even badly isn't going to change that, especially since the election was not lost by one of their own true believers but by someone they see as a pretender. And I personally do not see this shift to the Dems in 2006 and now as being generated based on the moral values issues; I see it more based on economic ones and also foreign policy.

 

[Cold Highway]

Not to be a wet blanket but Democrats werent you guys complaining when Republicans had control of all three branches? Alot of you and some moderates agree that one party being in charge isnt a good thing but your jumping for joy over a possible filibuster-proof Democratically controlled federal government.

 

[mikhail]

The Republican party needs to rebuild without the religious nutjobs.

 

[jfuh]

I wasn't vouching for it; just speculating on the course of future GOP politics if they suffer a major defeat this election, as appears likely.

Sorry, wasn't saying you were.

I don't think the "values" element of the party will disappear, or even be substantially weakened, and may be stregnthened. These attitudes are held by the religous base (mostly) for whom it constitutes their core beliefs, and the loss of an election even badly isn't going to change that, especially since the election was not lost by one of their own true believers but by someone they see as a pretender. And I personally do not see this shift to the Dems in 2006 and now as being generated based on the moral values issues; I see it more based on economic ones and also foreign policy.

Wherein lies the problem. Religious gang has this belief that if they get a "core" believer in office that everything will be alright because they have moral superiority or that "god" will guide h/er.
Republicans need to come up with substance, not preaching. America does not want a preacher in office, if they want theocracy go to Iran - I doubt anyone would like that form of government.
Why can't the faithful just keep their religion to themselves and out of my constitution and law?
Do they not realize that ultimately those that will be hurt the most by such are those of religious faith.
The pilgrims escaped from GB for fear of religious prosecution because GB was theocratic under the church of England. Why does the religious community not see this simple rational?

 

[Iriemon]

Not to be a wet blanket but Democrats werent you guys complaining when Republicans had control of all three branches? Alot of you and some moderates agree that one party being in charge isnt a good thing but your jumping for joy over a possible filibuster-proof Democratically controlled federal government.

I honestly don't recall that being an issue raised by either the Gore or Kerry campaigns.

 

[Iriemon]

Sorry, wasn't saying you were.


Wherein lies the problem. Religious gang has this belief that if they get a "core" believer in office that everything will be alright because they have moral superiority or that "god" will guide h/er.
Republicans need to come up with substance, not preaching. America does not want a preacher in office, if they want theocracy go to Iran - I doubt anyone would like that form of government.
Why can't the faithful just keep their religion to themselves and out of my constitution and law?
Do they not realize that ultimately those that will be hurt the most by such are those of religious faith.
The pilgrims escaped from GB for fear of religious prosecution because GB was theocratic under the church of England. Why does the religious community not see this simple rational?

While IMO the majority of Americans don't subscribe to the moral views of the evangelical crowd, there are social/moral issues were the Democrats can disenfranchise themselves. If the Dems go to far left on issues like gay rights, gun control and unrestricted abortion, for example, they risk alienating some of the moderates and stregnthening the "family values" portion of the Republican platform.

Again, IMO the issues that have really hurt the Republicans have been the economy and foreign policy, not the social ones.

 

[jfuh]

Not to be a wet blanket but Democrats werent you guys complaining when Republicans had control of all three branches? Alot of you and some moderates agree that one party being in charge isnt a good thing but your jumping for joy over a possible filibuster-proof Democratically controlled federal government.

I agree that when one party has control of both legislature and executive that such is problematic, however the judicial is quite solidly conservative or at least with such a lean.
Now, I'm not a democrat but why am I jumping in glee? For one simple reason, I want to see the death of the neocons, I want to see the death of social conservatives. I want to see the death of the non-sense culture wars and all the various bull**** issues that the republican party has been running on for the last two decades.
They continue to run on these divisive platforms today and I optimistically believe that should the loose a devastating defeat in just over a week that it will be the death of such platforms and nonesense in American politics.
By these issues I mean such as ID in classrooms as science, gay marriage, ect.

 

[jfuh]

While IMO the majority of Americans don't subscribe to the moral views of the evangelical crowd, there are social/moral issues were the Democrats can disenfranchise themselves. If the Dems go to far left on issues like gay rights, gun control and unrestricted abortion, for example, they risk alienating some of the moderates and stregnthening the "family values" portion of the Republican platform.

These should never be issues to begin with.
But I fully agree, if they act on these irrelevant issues too quickly (no the federal government should have no bearing on the marriage issue anyway), it will be alienating and the dems will loose control of congress in 2010 opening the door back to the religious republicans once more.

 

[Iriemon]

These should never be issues to begin with.
But I fully agree, if they act on these irrelevant issues too quickly (no the federal government should have no bearing on the marriage issue anyway), it will be alienating and the dems will loose control of congress in 2010 opening the door back to the religious republicans once more.

Well, there are always limits to these things that you cannot divorce from society's interests.

We may think its OK for gays to have the economic rights of marriage because they believe in same sex love. But if someone believes that pedophelia is OK is that something that should never be an issue? Sex with animals? We may support abortion, but if someone thinks its OK to have an abortion of a viable baby at 9 months, or to terminate its life sometimes after birth, is that OK and something that should never be an issue?

There are no easy answers to these rules. It just something society has to struggle with and try to reach a consensus about. That doesn't mean they are not issues that should not be addressed, even if some would draw the line in a different place you and I might.