Priebus increasingly likely to seek 4th term

[IceSpear]

I like how they ditched the black guy after having an amazing election in 2010, yet kept Priebus after the 2012 disaster and may do so again after a possible 2016 disaster.

[IceSpear]

I like how they ditched the black guy after having an amazing election in 2010, yet kept Priebus after the 2012 disaster and may do so again after a possible 2016 disaster.

Dumping Michael Steele had absolutely nothing to do with race, despite what you're implying.  He was a gaffe machine.  Reince is not.

Because clearly whether or not you're a "gaffe machine" is more important than election results. And Priebus sounds dopey as hell and is incredibly lame in his speeches and media appearances. He's a joke.

And sure it has nothing to do with race. According to most Republicans, nothing ever has anything to do with race!

[IceSpear]

I like how they ditched the black guy after having an amazing election in 2010, yet kept Priebus after the 2012 disaster and may do so again after a possible 2016 disaster.

Dumping Michael Steele had absolutely nothing to do with race, despite what you're implying.  He was a gaffe machine.  Reince is not.

Because clearly whether or not you're a "gaffe machine" is more important than election results. And Priebus sounds dopey as hell and is incredibly lame in his speeches and media appearances. He's a joke.

And sure it has nothing to do with race. According to most Republicans, nothing ever has anything to do with race!

So, you're implying that Republicans are racist because they ditched Steele. Were they temporarily not racist when they elected him or something? Really can't see what angle you're going for here.

It seems they're more prone to give a white guy a pass for unsatisfactory results.

[IceSpear]

I like how they ditched the black guy after having an amazing election in 2010, yet kept Priebus after the 2012 disaster and may do so again after a possible 2016 disaster.

Dumping Michael Steele had absolutely nothing to do with race, despite what you're implying.  He was a gaffe machine.  Reince is not.

Because clearly whether or not you're a "gaffe machine" is more important than election results. And Priebus sounds dopey as hell and is incredibly lame in his speeches and media appearances. He's a joke.

And sure it has nothing to do with race. According to most Republicans, nothing ever has anything to do with race!

So, you're implying that Republicans are racist because they ditched Steele. Were they temporarily not racist when they elected him or something? Really can't see what angle you're going for here.

It seems they're more prone to give a white guy a pass for unsatisfactory results.

Priebus has pretty objectively been a better chairman than Steele. Also funny how you leave out 2014 when discussing each of their records.

Steele's record - 1 huge win
Priebus's record - 1 huge loss, 1 huge win, could still be re-elected after a potential 2nd huge loss

Hmm...I wonder which is better.

[IceSpear]

I like how they ditched the black guy after having an amazing election in 2010, yet kept Priebus after the 2012 disaster and may do so again after a possible 2016 disaster.

Dumping Michael Steele had absolutely nothing to do with race, despite what you're implying.  He was a gaffe machine.  Reince is not.

Because clearly whether or not you're a "gaffe machine" is more important than election results. And Priebus sounds dopey as hell and is incredibly lame in his speeches and media appearances. He's a joke.

And sure it has nothing to do with race. According to most Republicans, nothing ever has anything to do with race!

So, you're implying that Republicans are racist because they ditched Steele. Were they temporarily not racist when they elected him or something? Really can't see what angle you're going for here.

It seems they're more prone to give a white guy a pass for unsatisfactory results.

Priebus has pretty objectively been a better chairman than Steele. Also funny how you leave out 2014 when discussing each of their records.

Steele's record - 1 huge win
Priebus's record - 1 huge loss, 1 huge win, could still be re-elected after a potential 2nd huge loss

Hmm...I wonder which is better.

But being chairman is more than just that, do you really think Steele could've turned 2012 into a win? Like Green Line said, Steele made a lot of gaffes. Not only did he admit to being pro choice at one time, but he's constantly stumbled on what the GOP's core message is. With regards to 2016, Steele himself has admitted Trump needed to happen, so again, things wouldn't have been any different with him. I believe Priebus projects a better message at what the GOP stands for, and he isn't constantly flip flopping like Steele was.

No, I think it's stupid and silly that people think a party chair can change so much. I said the same thing when people blamed DWS for Democratic losses. Even if Jesus and Satan were the DNC/RNC chairs respectively in 2010/2014, it still would've been a GOP landslide. Vice versa for 2006/2008.

But since everyone seems to unquestioningly accept the narrative that horrible election results should reflect on the party chair and they need to fall on their sword, then why is Priebus exempt from this rule?

[IceSpear]

Steele's record - 1 huge win
Priebus's record - 1 huge loss, 1 huge win, could still be re-elected after a potential 2nd huge loss

Hmm...I wonder which is better.

Steele was incompetent and if anything Republicans won in 2010 despite him, not because of him. And I remember with Republicans failing to retake the Senate, there was a lot of bitterness among them because of "wasted oportunities". I'm not claiming Steele costed him these, but he was no help either.

Priebus is very good at what party chairmen are supposed to do: coordinating fundraising and election strategy. He was doing a pretty good job as WI Republican Chair too. I wouldn't consider 2012 such a "huge loss", as it was actually pretty narrow. Then we have 2014 which was a real blowout.

Party chairmen have much more clout in downballot races than presidential ones, with a candidate's campaign essentially taking over running things on that level.

2012 was not narrow. Democrats won 75% of the Senate seats up for the election! It was only a small net gain because they already nearly maxed out in the previous 2006 wave. If 2006 was a neutral or GOP-friendly year, 2012 would've been an absolute bloodbath even eclipsing 2014.

[IceSpear]

I like how they ditched the black guy after having an amazing election in 2010, yet kept Priebus after the 2012 disaster and may do so again after a possible 2016 disaster.

Dumping Michael Steele had absolutely nothing to do with race, despite what you're implying.  He was a gaffe machine.  Reince is not.

Because clearly whether or not you're a "gaffe machine" is more important than election results. And Priebus sounds dopey as hell and is incredibly lame in his speeches and media appearances. He's a joke.

And sure it has nothing to do with race. According to most Republicans, nothing ever has anything to do with race!

So, you're implying that Republicans are racist because they ditched Steele. Were they temporarily not racist when they elected him or something? Really can't see what angle you're going for here.

It seems they're more prone to give a white guy a pass for unsatisfactory results.

Priebus has pretty objectively been a better chairman than Steele. Also funny how you leave out 2014 when discussing each of their records.

Steele's record - 1 huge win
Priebus's record - 1 huge loss, 1 huge win, could still be re-elected after a potential 2nd huge loss

Hmm...I wonder which is better.

But being chairman is more than just that, do you really think Steele could've turned 2012 into a win? Like Green Line said, Steele made a lot of gaffes. Not only did he admit to being pro choice at one time, but he's constantly stumbled on what the GOP's core message is. With regards to 2016, Steele himself has admitted Trump needed to happen, so again, things wouldn't have been any different with him. I believe Priebus projects a better message at what the GOP stands for, and he isn't constantly flip flopping like Steele was.

No, I think it's stupid and silly that people think a party chair can change so much. I said the same thing when people blamed DWS for Democratic losses. Even if Jesus and Satan were the DNC/RNC chairs respectively in 2010/2014, it still would've been a GOP landslide. Vice versa for 2006/2008.

But since everyone seems to unquestioningly accept the narrative that horrible election results should reflect on the party chair and they need to fall on their sword, then why is Priebus exempt from this rule?

If you don't agree with that narrative, then don't use it in your arguments, it's pretty simple. So were you only originally saying Steele was a better chairman ironically? Because you just admitted that chairs don't affect the races that much, though your entire original argument predicated on Priebus presiding over worse election results than Steele.

You used an argument that you admittedly don't even believe in, all to defend your baseless claim that Steele was dumped because he's black. Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

I doubt you even care about the topic any further than pulling the race card randomly, but if you do, then on what grounds is Steele a better chair? It isn't election results, as contradicted by yourself.

You're missing the point. I don't buy into the argument, but I've seen countless people on Atlas and the media in general that do believe it. So yes, I was using it to show the hypocrisy and double standards. It seems it's easier to scapegoat a woman or a black for everything. But once it's a white guy, it wasn't their fault, there's nothing they could've done!!1!!!!

I mean seriously, the "conventional wisdom" seems to be:

Dean - Great DNC chair! 50-state strategy responsible for helping the Democrats dominate!
Kaine - He was okay, there was nothing he could've done to stop 2010!
Priebus - He's been a decent chair, 2012 wasn't his fault and 2016 won't be either! Plus, he did amazing in 2014!

Steele - Utterly awful and incompetent! Republicans won 2010 despite him, not because of him!
DWS - Utterly awful and incompetent! She is single handedly responsible for destroying the Democratic Party even though she was also chair in 2012!

Hmm...seems like a pattern to me. It certainly isn't based on empirical election results.