What Happened To The GOP in 2012

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

2012 was arguably the weakest Republicanfield in decades. Why is that. Why did the Republican A-Team decide to sit 2012 out. Obama was at his weakest in 2011, when the Primary race began. It was the perfect storm. Why did Jindal, Christie, Thune, Daniels and others decide against running?

[Maxwell]

Obama is an incredibly strong campaigner. I think a lot of the stronger candidates on the Republican side, especially Christie and Daniels, sensed that and decided to bow out. They thought that it would be better if there wasn't an incumbent Democratic President to run against. Obama is also well-liked, his favorables are almost always higher than his approvals, so it might've been tough to be able to compete against that.

It was only the people who either didn't sense how good of a campaigner or how good the ground game of Obama that ran, or the people who felt it was their turn (I am almost sure Romney knew the implications of running against Obama).

[Indy Texas]

In general, when running against a sitting president, the odds are always stacked against you. Most shrewd politicians won't tempt fate. The people who challenge sitting presidents are usually fairly old guys who won't have another chance to run if they wait four years (Mondale, Dole, Romney).

It requires a fluke event like a third party candidate (1992) or unexpected foreign political developments (1980).

[Mehmentum]

I think the biggest failure of Republicans in 2012 was not at the presidential level, but the Senate, though both cases represent the same problem.

In the Senate, Republicans lost in a lot of states they had no right to lose in during a fairly neutral presidential year.  Look at Missouri, look at Indiana; the fact that Republicans lost or failed to pick up these two seats is entirely their fault, they chose the horrible candidates in those states that then decided to go talk about rape.

It wasn't just that the Republicans were bad, the Democrats did all of the right things.  Montana and North Dakota featured very strong Democratic candidates prevailing where many thought they wouldn't.  The Democrat's victory in Missouri is partially due to McCaskill cleverly airing 'attack' adds helping Akin by calling him too conservative.

[Mr. Morden]

2012 was arguably the weakest Republicanfield in decades. Why is that. Why did the Republican A-Team decide to sit 2012 out. Obama was at his weakest in 2011, when the Primary race began. It was the perfect storm. Why did Jindal, Christie, Thune, Daniels and others decide against running?

Christie was still in his first term as governor, and didn't want to leave so early in order to run for president.  Jindal would have had to leave office after one term (because of the timing of the LA gubernatorial race), and he was still only 41 years old in 2012.  Younger than any president in history.  He still has lots of time to run for president in the future.  Daniels didn't run because his wife didn't want him to, and Thune seems to be more interested in climbing the ladder in the Senate than being president.

In general though, there's been a shift in the type of person who wants to run for president.  The current media environment, and especially the existence of those 20+ primary debates, makes running for president an attractive option for people who largely just want to use the campaign to draw attention to themselves, and help themselves sell books.  That's why you had folks like Cain and Gingrich in the race.

On the flip side, candidates who might legitimately be interested in being president if the campaign process wasn't so gruelling are being driven away.  The two year campaign, including unprecedented scrutiny of one's personal life, and a primary election phase that requires hugging the base and a general election phase that requires appealing to swing voters, is driving capable candidates away in a way that wasn't happening when the nomination process was decided in smoke filled rooms.  This seems to be especially true on the GOP side, because of the increasing number of litmus tests and "pledges" to special interest groups that are being demanded of candidates.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Why did Jindal, Christie, Thune, Daniels and others decide against running?

As if they would have been any good either?

[pbrower2a]

1. Barack Obama did about everything that gets an incumbent President re-elected. He avoided scandals. His cabinet choices did not make fools of themselves. He got major legislation enacted. He avoided diplomatic and military debacles. He got us out of a pointless war without disgrace. He calmed anti-American sentiments worldwide. He whacked the most objectionable terrorist in American history and some other characters then very dangerous to America. He responded competently, equitably, and promptly to natural disasters. He performed good stewardship of an economy that seemed in a catastrophic meltdown. If it is too early to determine how good a President he is, one can clearly recognize him as much better than his incompetent, reckless, dishonest predecessor.

2. Barack Obama had the same competent campaign methods of 2008. If his campaign could not pretend at any time to contest 50 states it was able to win the States that he had to win. It ably coordinated itself with interest groups that won him the 2008 election. Those groups had no cause to abandon him. If he got fewer votes it was because people who ordinarily voted Republican before 2008 voted for him because they were more concerned about income and asset values than taxes and the cheapness of labor during an economic meltdown, those voters had recovered enough to become more secure about income and asset values to have concern about taxes, regulations, and labor costs. But people who voted for him for other reasons still voted for him. That is success.

3. Republicans assumed that the 2010 elections were the wave of the future because they were so successful. What happened was that they won about every House and Senate seat that they could in a year of depressed turnout. Democrats had little more to lose in 2012. It was easy to see the President as vulnerable if he still stood for everything that the Hard Right despised -- but they couldn't win over fresh voters to their side. There was no nationwide Religious Revival to pull Americans from D to R and there is unlikely to be one soon.

4. Need I mention that politicians are wise to avoid the topic of rape except to say that it is a horrible crime and "lock rapists up and lose the key"? Democrats have largely sloughed off the "soft on crime" meme. Democrats won two Senate seats in states that Barack Obama was nowhere near winning (Indiana, Missouri) because fools nominated for the US Senate trivialized rape.

5. Mitt Romney was a poor candidate for President -- and such was not known to begin with. He ran on his business success, but that implies that what he does to succeed is relevant. His business success was heavily the raiding of assets from cash-rich but troubled companies. The cash disappeared, and the companies stripped of cash became quick failures. People who might have seen him as a possible solution to a fiscal mess found his managerial style inappropriate for government. Businesses can fire at will, but governments cannot 'fire' voters. He showed himself a flagrant narcissist. Even the "dog on the roof" had to scare some people. If he could take a dog across country on the roof of a car, what could he do to people?

I cannot suggest what Republican would have done better in 2012, though. Many would have exposed flaws that we don't know about. Republicans needed a miracle -- another Ronald Reagan.

6. Paul Ryan was a horrible choice for VP. Active Congressional Representatives have fared badly in Presidential politics. Maybe Barry Goldwater and Walter Mondale had doomed campaigns, but their choices could not swing the state that those choices represented in one Congressional district. For good reason we elect numerous current or former Senators and Governors -- they have succeeded in statewide elections. OK, Jack Kemp was a good politician but ran from the wrong state; Dick Cheney won a statewide election in Wyoming because the one Congressional representative is elected at-large. But it was Wyoming, which is no microcosm of America. Cheney was selected for his administrative experience and policy knowledge and not for any perceived  ability to swing a state -- and Dubya got away with that choice.

What about 2014?

The Democrats have more potential for loss in the Senate due to open seats or Democrats in states that Republicans have done well in in recent statewide elections. But that was also so in 2012. Strong Democratic Senate candidates could topple an unpopular Senator Mitch McConnell in Kentucky and win an open seat in Georgia -- if such candidates appear. That is a big 'if'. Indiana looked 'Safe R' for its Senate seat going into 2012, too.  Some unpopular Republican governors can crash and burn.

Democrats must win some House seats with electorates tending slightly R that now have extreme Tea Party types to win a Congressional majority. The other side is that the Democrats have few glaring vulnerabilities in the House. It's not as if the Democrats have outright Marxists in moderate districts in which a moderate Republican could win.

Several Republican governors have approval ratings deep underwater  - in the range of the RMS Titanic.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Mitt Romney appeared to early on have wrapped up the nomination by the state of the union at the latest. Rick Santorum and Gingrich attacked softened him up especially on Bain capital and made him an easier target in the fall. Also, april, 2012, the economy was stuck at 9% and the gop had the advantage. But the unemployment fell below 8% and picked up steam and it was a personal campaign between obama and romney in which obama won.  As for the senate, the abortion debate got the best of the gop there.

[PulaskiSkywayDriver]

The slow economic improvements kept more Obama voters from defecting, particularly in the Midwest, and Romney failed to motivate the marginal members of his base and contest Latino votes due to his frosty immigration stance.

I believe Rick Perry was the most dangerous candidate against the Democrats in terms of the Electoral College because he would have gotten a higher Latino and rural vote than Romney. This could have flipped Ohio, Florida and maybe Virginia and either Pennsylvania or Colorado with increased  turnout. However his campaign got stuck on stupid issues and never got out of the starting gate.

[bedstuy]

I believe Rick Perry was the most dangerous candidate against the Democrats in terms of the Electoral College because he would have gotten a higher Latino and rural vote than Romney. This could have flipped Ohio, Florida and maybe Virginia and either Pennsylvania or Colorado with increased  turnout. However his campaign got stuck on stupid issues and never got out of the starting gate.

I think his campaign got stuck on Rick Perry being stupid.  He's an absolute joke.  Forget Perry's resume, he fails the basic test of competence.  Obama would have smoked him.

[sg0508]

I believe Rick Perry was the most dangerous candidate against the Democrats in terms of the Electoral College because he would have gotten a higher Latino and rural vote than Romney. This could have flipped Ohio, Florida and maybe Virginia and either Pennsylvania or Colorado with increased  turnout. However his campaign got stuck on stupid issues and never got out of the starting gate.

I think his campaign got stuck on Rick Perry being stupid.  He's an absolute joke.  Forget Perry's resume, he fails the basic test of competence.  Obama would have smoked him.

Perry's candidacy was just about EVERYTHING WRONG with the GOP platform and party in 2012.  He's a good summary of what's wrong.

[minionofmidas]

The Republicans' best and brightest ran. It just so happens that even their best and brightest would be in special ed classes if they were young nowadays. (Also, what Meh said.)

[You kip if you want to...]

Because even when his approvals were at 40%, he tied the frontrunners and most of them realised that their brand has been tarnished far to much by the likes of Bush, Palin and people of that ilk.

[CountryClassSF]

What happened is that we had a RINO candidate that threw the conservative base overboard - and millions of conservatives stayed home

[MaxQue]

What happened is that we had a RINO candidate that threw the conservative base overboard - and millions of conservatives stayed home

Sure, sure...
Democrats never win elections, it's just than the Republican base doesn't turnout, or than they still elections.
If Republicans only nominated conservatives, they would have the presidency, 100 senate seats and 435 house seats, as conservatives are billions in the country.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

GOP is an oil and gas party and the economc collapse is fresh in memories. We are becoming less dep on fossil fuels and self reliant on energy. Soon, by 2020 we will have green energy like solar wind panels. 2016 will be fought on minimum wage and on green energy.

[Smash255]

The slow economic improvements kept more Obama voters from defecting, particularly in the Midwest, and Romney failed to motivate the marginal members of his base and contest Latino votes due to his frosty immigration stance.

I believe Rick Perry was the most dangerous candidate against the Democrats in terms of the Electoral College because he would have gotten a higher Latino and rural vote than Romney. This could have flipped Ohio, Florida and maybe Virginia and either Pennsylvania or Colorado with increased  turnout. However his campaign got stuck on stupid issues and never got out of the starting gate.

LOL no.  The numbers Perry would have put up in areas like suburban Philly and NOVA woul have been beyond ugly.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The slow economic improvements kept more Obama voters from defecting, particularly in the Midwest, and Romney failed to motivate the marginal members of his base and contest Latino votes due to his frosty immigration stance.

I believe Rick Perry was the most dangerous candidate against the Democrats in terms of the Electoral College because he would have gotten a higher Latino and rural vote than Romney. This could have flipped Ohio, Florida and maybe Virginia and either Pennsylvania or Colorado with increased  turnout. However his campaign got stuck on stupid issues and never got out of the starting gate.

LOL no.  The numbers Perry would have put up in areas like suburban Philly and NOVA woul have been beyond ugly.

Had Perry not developed sleep apnea during the campaign, he could have very well done as well as Romney in those areas, and much better in areas with high Hispanic populations. Other than Ron Paul, Romney was by far the worst candidate to appeal to nonwhite voters.

[Smash255]

The slow economic improvements kept more Obama voters from defecting, particularly in the Midwest, and Romney failed to motivate the marginal members of his base and contest Latino votes due to his frosty immigration stance.

I believe Rick Perry was the most dangerous candidate against the Democrats in terms of the Electoral College because he would have gotten a higher Latino and rural vote than Romney. This could have flipped Ohio, Florida and maybe Virginia and either Pennsylvania or Colorado with increased  turnout. However his campaign got stuck on stupid issues and never got out of the starting gate.

LOL no.  The numbers Perry would have put up in areas like suburban Philly and NOVA woul have been beyond ugly.

Had Perry not developed sleep apnea during the campaign, he could have very well done as well as Romney in those areas, and much better in areas with high Hispanic populations. Other than Ron Paul, Romney was by far the worst candidate to appeal to nonwhite voters.

Not a chance, Perry's hardcore social conservatism would have been a brutal fit for those areas.

[barfbag]

There were some big names such as Rubio, Thune, and Christie who decided not to run. I consider Mitt Romney to be a phenomenal candidate though.  He's been made out to be a poor choice by the media but so has every Republican since Lincoln. Ronald Reagan was once considered to be an unelectable doofus who was going senile and he did quite fine so I'm not sure Newt Gingrich was a poor choice either. Ron Paul as well ran on a platform that represents nearly half the nation. Many people would love to see a more limited government as the founding fathers have wanted. Herman Cain is another candidate who could have caught on but dropped out too early to really be able to tell. Other than the above mentioned candidates, it was a weak field, but was it as week as the 2004 Democrats? Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley-Braun, Dennis Kucinich, Bob Graham, Dick Gephardt, and Wesley Clark were hardly going to have a chance to defeat Bush. In comparison to past Republican Primaries, I think it was at least as strong of a field as 1996.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Many people would love to see a more limited government as the founding fathers have wanted.

That's why the GOP lost.

[barfbag]

Many people would love to see a more limited government as the founding fathers have wanted.

That's why the GOP lost.

No we lost because 4 million conservatives did not vote due to religious reasons or viewing Romney as too liberal.

[DS0816]

2012 was arguably the weakest Republicanfield in decades. Why is that? Why did the Republican A-Team decide to sit 2012 out.

The GOP doesn't have the map or the numbers.

For one: Republicans haven't carried women nationally since 1988. Kinda important!

If you don't like that, refer to former Republican strategist Matthew Dowd from ABC News' 2012 election-night coverage: "The Republicans are a Mad Men party in a Modern Family world."

[hopper]

The R's lost because they don't understand Generation Y and Hispanics. Why is it always the GOP is too moderate when they lose anyway? I mean a bunch of people have a press conference on C-Span the next day after the election and its like they have no idea as to why their party lost. Its like they are in a different country. I am not even saying that to be shocking. I mean it. Did these people even look at the last US Census? Have they been in the Hispanic Community before? They want the Tea Party to become the Republican Party which is a total loser in minority precients. They have to get their head out of the sand and start listening to Generation Y and The Hispanic Community and stop saying dumb things about Hispanics(i.e. Steve King.) The Tea Party influence may have been good for one cycle in 2010 but The Tea Party had its 15 minutes of fame and its up.

[barfbag]

The R's lost because they don't understand Generation Y and Hispanics. Why is it always the GOP is too moderate when they lose anyway? I mean a bunch of people have a press conference on C-Span the next day after the election and its like they have no idea as to why their party lost. Its like they are in a different country. I am not even saying that to be shocking. I mean it. Did these people even look at the last US Census? Have they been in the Hispanic Community before? They want the Tea Party to become the Republican Party which is a total loser in minority precients. They have to get their head out of the sand and start listening to Generation Y and The Hispanic Community and stop saying dumb things about Hispanics(i.e. Steve King.) The Tea Party influence may have been good for one cycle in 2010 but The Tea Party had its 15 minutes of fame and its up.

Another reason we lost is because it normally goes 8 years of one party followed by 8 years of the other party.