Time to face facts, the GOP is NOT a national party

[IceSpear]

The GOP got 47.1% of the vote in 2012. McCain got 45.7% in the worst possible conditions for a Republican and with a complete and widely mocked idiot as his running mate. I'd call that a national party.

With the way many Democrats talk, you'd think Republicans can't crack double digits.

[IceSpear]

The GOP got 47.1% of the vote in 2012. McCain got 45.7% in the worst possible conditions for a Republican and with a complete and widely mocked idiot as his running mate. I'd call that a national party.

With the way many Democrats talk, you'd think Republicans can't crack double digits.

^^This.

Republicans are still a national party. To say that they don't compete in particular regions of the country is a bit native and just wishful thinking. They almost always compete everywhere even in places where they know they cannot win, as do Democrats. This is what bothers me most about the Democratic Party. Can we really say that we won the last election, or did Republicans lose it for us? Yes, they ran a terrible candidate and we ran a good one, which is their fault, because history showed that any Republican should have been able to have defeated Barack Obama in 2012 given the circumstances, especially with regards to the economy and the unemployment rate. Arguably, the same can be said for the Senate. Yes, the Republicans probably should have been able to take control of the Senate but they nominated crazies who talked about rape of all issues and lost in conservative states that they shouldn't have (Missouri and Indiana), and Democrats ran better candidates in even more conservative states that we shouldn't have won (Montana and North Dakota). As a party, we cannot just continue to sit back and let the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot because one of these days, they are going to wake up and realize that the extremists in their party are hurting them. We should win based on our platform and the ideals and values that we hold dear, NOT because of the other party's ability to nominate extremists and loons along the lines of Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, etc.

You can make the argument that Republicans are losing more because of their message than their messengers, which is a valid argument to make, but to suggest that they aren't a national party anymore is a bit ridiculous. Of course they are. In fact, one of the country's most popular Republicans right now hails from a blue state in the Northeast (Chris Christie). Republican Susan Collins continues to win in landslide reelections in blue state Maine. Washington State elected a Republican Secretary of State in 2012 (Kim Wyman), and Republicans hold plenty of seats in the Pacific West Coast congressional delegation.

Until third parties start to gain more traction, I just don't think you can make the argument that the Republican Party is no longer a national party.  

Seriously. If Republicans can get 47% of the vote with a horrible candidate like Romney who was on tape bashing half the country, and can win the House despite the fact that the party is controlled by far right maniacs, it frightens me how well they could potentially do with self discipline and decent candidates.

[IceSpear]

You have a very special definition of national.

But Gully, many on the Atlas don't know anyone who votes Republican these days, so obviously they can't be a national party.

Though, to be fair to the delusional Democrats, the Republicans were even more delusional after 2004. Apparently a -0.5% and then a +2.4% win meant they had a "permanent majority".

[IceSpear]

^I still can't believe West Virginia voted for Dukakis.