Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995


Fox News Is Killing The Republican Party

Dan Hodges, The Telegraph | Nov. 8, 2012, 7:11 AM | 137,573 | 150

Helping Obama Win The Election

For me there was no doubt about the high point of Wednesday morning's election coverage. At about four o’clock I flicked over to Fox to see how the good folks there were managing their grief. I was greeted by what – even by Fox standards – was an amazing sight. Karl Rove had become embroiled in a heated debate with his own network about their decision to call Ohio and the Presidency for Barack Obama. It was too early, he said. There were still lots of votes to be counted. They had to be right, not first.

Not wishing to miss the opportunity for some fantastic television – even at their own expense – anchor Megan Kelly was dispatched to confront her network’s own decision desk. The startled analysts, who bore the excited but nervous demeanour of elves who'd been visited by their Snow Queen, assured Kelly that the call had been correct, and Ohio had indeed been held by the President. Rove, grudgingly, was forced to back down.

For students of modern US political history, this represented the closing of a circle. It was Rove’s successful effort to get Fox to reverse their call of Florida for Al Gore in 2000 that in many people’s eyes won George Bush the Presidency. Had the networks stuck with their original predictions, the recount saga would have been conducted against the backdrop of a narrow lead for Gore rather than for Bush, potentially with a very different outcome.

But watching Rove vainly raging against the dying of the light cemented for me a view that’s been forming throughout this campaign. Fox News, widely perceived to be one of the Republican party’s greatest assets, has actually become a liability to it.

To describe Fox as a polarising broadcaster would be to give understatement a manly bear-hug. For Democrats and the liberal Left it is effectively an extension of the GOP press office, prosecuting a vicious and biased campaign against their candidates and values. For Republicans and the Right it provides a vital balance against the liberal prejudices of the Main Stream Media. But whatever the perceptions, Fox – to my mind – proved to be an albatross around the neck of Mitt Romney throughout this campaign.

I first noticed it over the whole Benghazi saga. Day after day Fox would breathlessly unleash yet another leaked cable, or internal State Department memo, exposing failures in the protection of Ambassador Stevens, his staff and his embassy. And I ignored them; firstly because there were so many ”revelations”, secondly because they were clearly being pushed as part of a wider political agenda and thirdly, because they were from Fox. And Fox, in my eyes, is synonymous with poor and partial journalism.

But in retrospect, some of what Fox was publishing was actually – in journalistic terms – solid material. Setting aside the crazy conspiracy theories, it was clear that concerns had been raised about security at the embassy compound. There were legitimate questions to be asked about the nature of the military response once the attack was under way. But these weren’t being asked – to any significant degree – by other media outlets. And they weren’t being asked – in part – because the story was being driven by Fox.

If I were one of Obama’s press officers I would have been offering up a silent prayer of thanks that Fox was devoting so much time and energy to the Benghazi story. Because that provided the Democrats with their best way of keeping the issue compartmentalised. “You’re a serious outlet,” I would have told any journalists following up “You don’t honestly want to be seen to be picking up and running with something Fox is peddling do you?” And I’d have been right. They wouldn’t.

Fox, because of the nature of their political coverage, has become ghettoised in the eyes of the rest of the media. And as a result, it makes it much harder for Republican strategists to generate legs for stories or issues that Fox is leading with.

by Anonymousreply 5411/12/2012

Fox, because of the nature of their political coverage, has become ghettoised in the eyes of the rest of the media. And as a result, it makes it much harder for Republican strategists to generate legs for stories or issues that Fox is leading with.

There is a second issue as well, which is that Fox has almost become the ultimate negative fact-check against Republicans. Obviously it was very, very rare for Fox to be overtly critical of Romney and his campaign. But when they were, the effect was hugely magnified.

When Fox’s news anchor Chris Wallace asked Romney political director Rich Beeson if his ads about Jeep production being shifted to China had been a “mistake”, Beeson quickly changed the subject. But the damage had already been done. The fact that “even Fox” was now questioning the truth of the ad was immediately held up by the Obama campaign – and other media outlets – as definitive proof the adverts were false and blowing back on Romney.

This has happened before. In 2008, Joseph Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Ohio, confronted Obama about his tax policy during an election walkabout. Wurzelbacher became an immediate media sensation, and overnight was drafted in as a surrogate for the McCain camp, pushing the image of Obama as someone out of touch with ordinary America. But then Wurzelbacher overreached himself, and started venturing onto issues like foreign policy. Fox anchor Shepherd Smith – who enjoys a reputation for independence – finally snapped, and took Wurzelbacher to task for a comment he had made about how “a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel”. Concluding the interview Smith looked directly at the camera and said “Man, it just gets frightening sometimes.” Again, the fact that it was Fox that had challenged Wurzelbacher became the story, and brought a premature end to Joe the Plumber’s burgeoning media career.

There is also one other significant way in which Fox works against those it seeks to serve. In effect, it provides a false comfort zone for conservative politicians and their supporters.

As we saw with Benghazi, rather than try to penetrate mainstream media outlets, there was a clear tendency for Romney advisers to do easy "hand-offs" to Fox on issues they wanted up and running. It reminded me of when we in the Labour Party used to just drop our best material in the laps of the Mirror; they would run it big, and we’d think we were talking to the whole country. In fact, we were talking almost entirely to our own supporters.

Similarly, there were times in the campaign when I saw Karl Rove on Fox make quite a mature and compelling argument about how – despite the evidence of the polls – Romney was well placed to win. But then a few hours later I’d see Dick Morris making the same arguments in his cartoonish way. And as soon as I saw Dick Morris peddling the line, I knew for certain Rove was bluffing.

Perhaps most damaging of all was the way Fox prevented Romney and the Republicans from properly stress-testing their arguments. Time and again, a Romney surrogate would be taken apart on an issue like their economic policy or stance on abortion. But an hour later they’d be back in the Fox studio, being lobbed softballs and given a soft ride. And it lulled them and their campaign into thinking the earlier car-crash had been an aberration, just one more example of the venality of the MSM.

Obviously Fox is influential. They reach a wide audience, and are a major, well-resourced and professionally run national broadcast outlet. But I’m not so sure they’re as damaging to Democrats as Democrats fear, or as helpful to Republicans as Republicans like to think.

And as the GOP begins the process of sifting through the wreckage of its latest election defeat, it needs to learn a lesson. Just because you’re winning around Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, it doesn’t mean you’re winning around America.

by Anonymousreply 111/08/2012

Election night made it very clear that Fox is a detriment to the Republican party as well as this country. It's time for their downfall.

by Anonymousreply 211/08/2012

I think FOX plays to its choir- older white men and will continue to do so. They were probably all delighted with Rove. Simple as that.

by Anonymousreply 311/08/2012

Charlie if that's true then they will eventually fade away.

by Anonymousreply 411/08/2012

Retirement homes in Central Florida schedule their events around FOX News.

by Anonymousreply 511/08/2012

Great article, very true, and very reassuring. They're preaching to the choir. And yes, this election has proven that the rightwing, who destroyed their own party, live in a vacuum.

by Anonymousreply 611/08/2012

I agree, their audience will shrink. But that is going to take a while. Angry white older men will be a significant if not the dominant demographic in the US for a loooonngggg time.

by Anonymousreply 711/08/2012

RIGHT, R8. It's a "liberal idea" that we can run up infinite debt. The Iraq war was paid for by the Republicans without running up so much as a dollar of debt. (That is also sarcasm, just FYI, as I know Repugs are both irony and intelligence challenged.)


Just for a single fucking second try looking at the world through the prism of facts rather than ridiculous partisan bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 1011/08/2012

Many of us have been saying it for years: FOX sheep don't want the truth. They only want their idiocy validated, and that's what FOX has done. Their viewers are just narcissistic douchebags who can never admit being wrong.

If there are Freepers reading this, you cannot claim MSNBC is the left version of FOX. The debates showed everyone why FOX is an embarrassment all on its own.

We knew Obama did an awful job the first debate. Everyone on the left was saying it, too. We knew Mitt -despite lie after lie after lie- had won the debate. The other two debates? Obama won - hands down. What did the right do? Blame everyone but Mitt. In the third one, they listened to that buffoon go back and forth between the word "Mali" (which I doubt he could even tell you where it is on the map, let alone name the leader or what language they speak) and the word "tumult." It was an embarrassing display for anyone who looked at that man and thought he should be leading us.

by Anonymousreply 1111/08/2012

"I agree, their audience will shrink. But that is going to take a while."

Aren't you a doctor, charlie?

For god's sake, can't you DO something?

by Anonymousreply 1211/08/2012

Bill O'Reilly:

by Anonymousreply 1411/08/2012

Fox news should be taken out in the next 4 years. Obama needs to use his power to shut these people down.

by Anonymousreply 1511/09/2012

Rupert Murdoch's empire is doomed. Roop and his would-be heir James are on the outs with the non-Murdochs on News Corp's board of directors, which has split off its print division and given it to Roop as a dolly to play with in the corner as it frantically attempts to survive the tsunami of lawsuits and parlimentary inquiries resulting from its highly illegal and very well-documented cell phone tapping and political influence peddling operations.

Fox is boxed into a corner now by its own success. If it tries to transition into a conventional news channel it'll lose its most dedicated viewers (who are dying off anyway) and will struggle to compete with MSNBC, which despite the progressive slant of its opinion shows still does some of the sort of traditional news that Fox is completely unequipped to do, and that poor unappreciated Cinderella channel CNN still does best. It could still try to go to real news, or perhaps more successfully reinvent itself as a sort of cable version of AM Coast to Coast, switching the emphasis from tabloid right-wing politics to tabloid sensationalism and general urban legend-slinging.

by Anonymousreply 1611/09/2012

R8/13 - Plenty of Democrats want to reduce the debt as well, it's just that Dems and Repubs disagree about the way to go about it. It's Keynes versus Hayek. Having studied both, I feel Keynes works better, when applied with discipline.

I'll say it again: Stating that it is a "liberal idea" that we can run up infinite debt is partisan bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 1711/09/2012

[quote]I think FOX plays to its choir- older white men and will continue to do so.

I don't know why you guys think that this demographic will eventually fade away. I see plenty of young white people who are very racist, conservative and followers of the same Repug ideologies that their parents believe in. Granted, the white population may not be growing at the same rate, but I think it might still be dangerous to assume that younger whites are mostly liberal.

by Anonymousreply 1811/09/2012

[quote]What the Republicans "need" is for our national debt to crash the American and global economics, thus puncturing the liberal idea that we can run up infinite debt.

Republicans view debt as a limiter to the powers of Federal Government. That's why they induce huge deficits. We're all old enough to know you are full of shit, R8.

The Republican party has dragged the Democratic party so far to the right that there is no where else to go. It has defeated itself.

Now, we have plenty of room for a Green Party. It's going to be harsh; a lot of the platform requires great sacrifice and a lot of thought on a daily basis.

Creating wealth while making best use of resources takes an educated workforce. We have that. It should be an adventure.

by Anonymousreply 1911/09/2012

R8, you ignore the fact that Democrats have now won the last 4 of 6 elections, winning the popular vote in the last 5 of 6. The shift has happened.

As someone who's watched this transition before, in the UK, let me tell you, the Republican party will remain in the wilderness for a while. When the Tories lost to Labour in 1997, they were out of power for close to 14 years and only just clawed their way back in a coalition government.

The Republicans are lost right now. They don't know what they're saying. They're in complete denial and even those of their ilk who are wise enough to be their Bill Clinton or Tony Blair and lead the party forward are not automatically going to assume power within their party. Obama is poised for success in his second term - success that he set up in his first term. The Democratic Party will be a hard brand to beat in 2016. The GOP no longer has the ear of the people, they no longer have 51% of Americans to push around anymore especially since now all of us know what they really think of us. As much as the GOP wants to say that everything is the same, this election cycle was disastrous for them. How many old angry white guys are left to join their party?

by Anonymousreply 2011/09/2012

Fantastic article last year thought what I always wondered: Is Murdoch really Mr. Burns from the Simpsons or is it a frightening coincidence?

He's the epitome of the angry greedy troll, which is the equivalent in politics of the angry greedy capitalist. He came to the U.S. thinking it to be the haven for greedy capitalists everywhere, shocked to find that after the Depression and the Civil Rights era, there actually was a new America.

So he wants to turn back the clock to the days when robber barons ruled the world and the masses had no rights.

Someone cut off his head. I would love to send Limbaugh, Coulter, Trump, Hannity, Beck, Joe Walsh, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and the rest of them to the guillotine one right after the other. Heads on sticks.

Don't even clean off the blade.

by Anonymousreply 2111/09/2012

Fox News HAS KILLED the Republican Party.

The Republican Party will never win the presidency ever again. It will die out a bit more each year from now on.

It is obsolete and based on hate. You can't build on that.

by Anonymousreply 2211/09/2012

See R23 is a good example of the FANTASYLAND where conservatives currently reside.

You think you can just change the head but the party itself is splintered and they're going to have to settle their internal differences first - in the aftermath of the election, a lot of Republicans are convinced that they need to be MORE CONSERVATIVE. It's going to take a while to get those people to see the light and chances are, for the midterms, they will still be applying their failed strategies. The party first has to wrest itself from the likes of Limbaugh and I know people who have been taking a daily diet of him for close to 20 years - they're not going to turn so easily. How are you going to convince all of these people who want to go down and police the Mexican border themselves that they now have to pander to Hispanics?

You're thinking it's a chess game. It's wholesale change.

And one of the things that really destroyed their chances was that ridiculous primary season - which will start again in two years. The truth is, other than Jeb Bush, there is no heir apparent which means the circus like atmosphere is likely to remain. You don't realise how lost you are.

Oh, and gay people are suddenly going to vote for the GOP in droves - based on what? Oh, now we've fought against this party for decades for health care and equality and they fought us every step of the way but now that that's all settled - is it? really? - we're happy to vote for our oppressors. You really are NUTS.

The only gay people who vote Republican are people who still want their conservative families to like them. It's their way of saying, "See? I'm just like you!" The GOP should not count on an increase in the LGBT vote EVER.

by Anonymousreply 2411/09/2012

R8 writes:

[bold]I've seen a lot of gloating on this board from liberals who make fun of Republican reactions to the Obama win, yet they would have been just as extreme had Romney won.

Liberals who say the Republicans need to change and regroup will likely not be so pleased when they do, since they won't be able to run against caricatures the way they did this time around. [/bold]

Never mind the gloating. Never mind liberals. There are many people, who do vote, and who are not conscious of politics. That they do not follow political talk and opinionated cable-news programming.

The Republicans will change if they're interested in winning the presidency again before some point in the mid-2020s.

Putting up an image -- like Marco Rubio of Florida ("Hey, America, we like Hispanics!") -- will not be enough. Becoming in touch with the citizenry and actually giving a damn about understanding them better, their diversity, and properly serving them from their elected offices will be required of them.

Anything short of that and the Republicans will become dismissed. By young voters. By women. By Hispanics. By Asians. By Cubans. By African-Americans. And, of course, by virtue of the fact that they don't the full 100 percent of white voters nationwide.

by Anonymousreply 2511/09/2012

[quote]What the Republicans "need" is for our national debt to crash the American and global economics, thus puncturing the liberal idea that we can run up infinite debt.

From Dick Cheney, 2002:

[quote]"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

So ... WHO is it that squandered the Clinton surplus and plunged the nation back into the Reagan debt legacy, and then totally cratered the economy before the 2008 elections?

by Anonymousreply 2611/09/2012

"(And once again a quarter of the LGBT population voted for Romney."

Link, please, beyotch.

by Anonymousreply 2711/09/2012

Here's David Frum basically saying the same thing On Morning Joe.

Worth watching. Well, for Democrats. I sincerely hope the Repugs don't watch and stay as delusional as they currently are.

Hint: the Romney loss was known 3 weeks ago

by Anonymousreply 2811/09/2012

Fox is like home schooling for Republican politicians.

They've raised a generation of politicians who have all grown up cradled in the loving arms of Fox News, and they've never learned the old school "game" that it takes to be a real politician. Ryan was the poster child for that--no ability whatsoever to work a hostile (or even neutral) crowd or sell the message.

by Anonymousreply 2911/09/2012

Fox News: Where white people can still feel superior without being called a racist!

by Anonymousreply 3011/09/2012

R24, you need to calm the fuck down and stop denigrating people on the left.

First of all, I said that the party is a party of angry old white men and would NOT do what is needed to shift the party. Can you read?

I believe the Republican party is corrupt. I also believe that they need to go on believing that the creepy right wing is their base. That's what the fundamentalists and nazis want them to believe. If we want the Democrats to continue to prevail, that's what we need them to believe.

But if you think the entire Republican party is represented by the loud, shrill fundamentalists, you are ill-informed. In the swing states, they are a minority.

There are three Americas. The blue states were overwhelmingly Democratic. Even a shift to the center wouldn't change that. The "red states" would probably not be lost by going to the center either.

In the swing states however is where America is seriously fucked up and leaving its fate in their hands. The swing states were NOT overwhelmingly Democratic. They were extremely close. The popular vote also shows that in most of these states, 20% of the US considers themselves "moderate or independent" and can be had. Long before the demographic shift, Clinton proved that going to the middle is the key to "reinventing" the party. The Democratic party has been more conservative ever since, and IF -- I say again IF THE REPUBLICANS get that, they could easily jettison the far right and be far more competitive than you let on.

And if you think LGBT people will not sell out the Democratic party, you're an idiot. 25% is NOT an insignificant number, and that percentage - 1 in 4 - has been solidly Republican.

The marriage and military crowd are PRECISELY the people who want to be mainstreamed. While those of us who were activists for years when marriage and military service were off the table, it is shocking to see how many people became involved once marriage was within our grasp. And the richer demographic for LGBT people means that there are plenty more greedy gay people out there who have been refusing to support the Republican party primarily because we've been excluded.

If you think going from 25% to 40% of the electorate is not realistic for a moderate Republican party, you will be schooled.

You're the one in fantasyland. The Democrats thought we had no one until Clinton came along, and until Obama came on the scene our only hope was another Clinton. The Republicans will not take this lying down.

We need to see if they will learn. Do not underestimate them.

by Anonymousreply 3111/09/2012

Really what needs to happen is for the Fairness Doctrine to be reimplemented. Flawed though it was, in its early days it required broadcasters to offer balanced, contrasting views thereby making one-sided outlets like FOX News unthinkable.

by Anonymousreply 3211/11/2012

[quote] the liberal idea that we can run up infinite debt

Deficits don't matter

by Anonymousreply 3311/11/2012

The federal government spends seven times as much money on people over 65 as it does on people under 19.

by Anonymousreply 3411/11/2012

[quote](And once again a quarter of the LGBT population voted for Romney. The Repugs are probably begging for the Court to "force" same-sex marriage on them so they have to "accept" it. Once it's no longer a campaign issue, and that might be here, watch LGBT people show their "independent" strips and vote Republican in bigger numbers).

Bitch, please. The elections showed a million things, but among them it showed that the DLers shrieking that white gays are all closet right wing Republican are full of shit.

The ONLY demo that went more Obama than gays is blacks. If you want to shriek about gay Repubs, you're going to have to shriek about Republican Latinos, Republican 18-30 year olds, Republican San Franciscans, and so on beforehand.... because they ALL went to Romney MORE than the gays.


by Anonymousreply 3511/11/2012

[quote]And if you think LGBT people will not sell out the Democratic party, you're an idiot. 25% is NOT an insignificant number, and that percentage - 1 in 4 - has been solidly Republican.

Read my post at r35, r31. Thanks, cunt.

by Anonymousreply 3611/11/2012

Good post, R31.

by Anonymousreply 3711/11/2012

[R8] writes:

[bold]I've seen a lot of gloating on this board from liberals who make fun of Republican reactions to the Obama win, yet they would have been just as extreme had Romney won.

Liberals who say the Republicans need to change and regroup will likely not be so pleased when they do, since they won't be able to run against caricatures the way they did this time around.[/bold]

I'll tell you this: I'd be very pleased if conservative Republicans would stop characterizing us brown people as dependents who live for government hand-outs. It's racist and condescending and I can't believe I'm still hearing this scapegoat rhetoric even AFTER the election! STOP IT NOW!

The Republican primaries were a racist free-for-all. The Republican party most repent.

by Anonymousreply 3811/11/2012

Never watch Faux but I've seen all the Karl Rove footage and I wonder if Megyn Kelly will get her contract renewed. She actually questioned the all mighty Rove, live on TV, no less and there will proably be consequences.

by Anonymousreply 3911/11/2012

Dumb post, r31.

The only demographic less red than gays is blacks. Predicting that Repubs winning over the gays is some sort of future triumph is retarded. Manhattan, California, and college students are all MORE red than gays.


by Anonymousreply 4011/11/2012

R31 makes some valid points that we need to consider.

We need to keep the rethugs turned in to Faux Noise - let them keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Push even farther to the right and hopefully fall off the face of the earth.

Most of us are intelligent enough to understand that debt is bad. We need to get out of it or at least get a handle on it.

The Dems need to drive a stake in the heart of the rethugs by lowering this debt. That will give them NOTHING legitimate to talk about in the mid-terms.

Keep the focus on the stupid shit they do and quietly take away any angle of sensibility they might ever have.

by Anonymousreply 4111/11/2012

Fox is helping, but the thing that's really killing the republican party is their belief in white superiority. There just aren't enough white bigots left to give them more than half of the national vote.

by Anonymousreply 4211/11/2012

Fox News only helps Democrats at the national level. What we need is for moderate Democrats to move to rural areas, especially in the south. Democrats will never win the House if we keep clustering in urban districts.

by Anonymousreply 4311/11/2012

I go to a couple of locations of LA Fitness, a national chain, here and they offer 12 channels of TV on some of the equipment. While Fox News used to be one of the choices, It's been gone for about a year in all the locations I visit. MSNBC replaced it. They've always carried CNN and still do. The point is most people know Fox News is a joke and it has been marginalized.

by Anonymousreply 4411/11/2012

Where is here, R44? Maybe it's a location by location, not corporate decision?

by Anonymousreply 4511/11/2012

Atlanta, Georgia (intown, not the deep red burbs). 3 locations with different sets of customers: 1) almost all gay, 2) office workers and science geeks from Ga. Tech, 3) Emory people and local Jews plus lots of gays. So yes, maybe it would be different in other locations with different poplulations. LA Fitness itself is based in the traditional Republican bastion Orange County.

by Anonymousreply 4611/11/2012

While I never underestimate the Republican party's ability to to drum up support from people whose quality of life will be negatively impacted should they get elected, I'm interested to see if and how it is going to broaden it's appeal.

Evangelicals and social conservatives make up 25-30% of the base, and they will lose their shit if the party doesn't continue to make marginalizing gay people and trying to limit and roll back reproductive rights part of its platform.

In terms of fiscal conservatives, for every principled (if usually tediously dogmatic and inflexible) libertarian-type, there seem to be two low information reactionaries who vehemently oppose any sort of legislation or spending initiative that they perceive to be benefitting African Americans or Latinos. Since 2008, the Tea Party rhetoric about fiscal conservatism has been steeped in obviously anti-black and nativist sentiment. If the Republican party tries to get out in front on immigration reform or (to my mind, even more unlikely) moderates its stance on investing through taxation and social spending (ie. admits that there needs to be some), the elastic waist pants and star spangled RV crowd will freak out.

Neither of the sizeable crowds (and there is overlap between them) are interested in taking marching orders from anybody who isn't a tested by fire "true believer". So, how does the more pragmatic and moderate wing of the party move them forward?

by Anonymousreply 4711/11/2012

[quote]If Collins ever decides to run for President, be afraid. Be very afraid.

Why? She'd never make it through the primaries. And if she did, it would have to be with the same tactics that Romney used and which helped him lose the election: repudiating everything he had previously said and believed and running hard right.

by Anonymousreply 4811/11/2012

The interesting thing is that Rupert Murdoch was initially a member of the Labor Party. His conservatism is something he put on later in life.

by Anonymousreply 4911/12/2012

[quote]anchor Megan Kelly was dispatched to confront her network’s own decision desk. The startled analysts, who bore the excited but nervous demeanour of elves who'd been visited by their Snow Queen, assured Kelly that the call had been correct


by Anonymousreply 5011/12/2012

A Dear Friend Suggested This As A Good Read

"Allow me to introduce myself to you, the existing (or aspiring!) strategist for the Republican Party. My name is Eric Arnold Garland and I am a White Man. Boy, am I ever – you need sunglasses just to look at my photo!

If I read the news correctly, I fit a profile that is of extreme importance to the GOP, as I embody the archetype that fits your narrative of Real Americans. Just how much should my profile interest you? Are you sitting down?....

by Anonymousreply 5111/12/2012

This Republican Civil War will be great fun. Grab the popcorn and a comfy chair.

Still, the gloating on our side needs to be kept in check by the reality that the Republican nativist appeal still managed to nab 58 million votes and that it has a lock on a huge swath of the country.

Several of the states Obama won will absolutely be up for grabs in four years (whereas the only Romney state likely to be competitive is North Carolina, and potentially Arizona, and potentially neither). Obama won by slim margins all over the map despite an extraordinary ground game and a far more sophisticated use of technology. It's not at all clear that either of those advantages will exist in four years. Also, Republican Super-PACS are likely to once again vastly outraise their Democratis counterparts, and will inevitably be much smarter about how those funds are deployed.

There is reason to be optimistic about blue-leaning demographic trends, but we are still a long way off from their being locked-in as an impenetrable Democratic voting bloc.

Back in 2004 I panicked when Rove came out with his "there is a permanent Republican majority" meme. I panicked because I believed him. Well, we have since learned that is not the case, but we can't take this most recent election as assuming there is a permanent Democratic majority. We are nowhere near that point.

All I am saying is.... this was great, but there is still a lot of work to do.

by Anonymousreply 5211/12/2012

"Still, the gloating on our side needs to be kept in check by the reality that the Republican nativist appeal still managed to nab 58 million votes and that it has a lock on a huge swath of the country."

Not quite. These people are becoming extinct. That's why everything is such a big deal this time, they are realizing it.

All the Democrats need to do is more of the same, and what can the Republicans possibly do besides radically change their message and then lose most of those who voted for them this time.

Get it? It's lose-lose for them.

Heh heh

by Anonymousreply 5311/12/2012

[quote]The perfect candidate? SUSAN COLLINS.

AHAHAAAA! Oh, my sides, MY SIDES!

Susan Collins is a political hybrid only noteworthy in the senate and in Maine. Her voice is a weird death rattley warble,a nd there's about as much to warm up to in her as there is in Mitt Romney. She is not so much moderate, as she is all over the map, and I have found her to be without any real moorings. She couldn't win a Republican primary in any discovered universe.

by Anonymousreply 5411/12/2012
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!