Republican failure to win the presidency -- is it just bad candidates?

[Redban]

A lot of talk has been about the GOP's failures at the presidential level. They have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. That's 1 win in roughly 25 years. And that win (2004) was a squeaker; Bush barely took it.

So people are arguing that the GOP needs to change. That anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-big government, and anti-amnesty are not good platforms.

But is that really the truth?

I think it may be more simple than that --- the GOP has simply not fielded a good candidate.

1992 - George H.W. Bush
1996 - Bob Dole
2000, 2004 - George W. Bush
2008 - John McCain
2012 - Mitt Romney

Do any of them strike you as great candidates? Bob Dole was arguably the worst candidate either party has fielded since Reagan.

The GOP is picking old guys with little charisma and poor speaking abilities.

The Dems are picking young, charismatic people like Obama, Clinton (both), and Gore. They brought a popular environmentalist, the first African-American president, the best speakers since JFK, and (almost) the first woman president.

That's why, for instance, the young vote is going for the Dems -- their candidates are "cooler."

Agree?

[Beet]

Uh, you're cherry picking qualities based on retrospective thinking. You could turn this around easily, for instance:

The Democrats nominated an awkward exaggerator with no charisma, a young inexperienced guy with a foreign sounding name whose race is only shared by 12% of the population that votes for their party anyways, a guy laden with sex scandals, an out of touch billionaire, and dramatically rejected what could have been the first woman president... and they still won.

Meanwhile the Republicans nominated two war heroes, a folksy family man who you'd like to have a beer with, a moderate maverick, and a tall, good-looking self-made businessman who was also a moderate governor of a blue state.

[ElectionsGuy]

A lot of talk has been about the GOP's failures at the presidential level. They have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. That's 1 win in roughly 25 years. And that win (2004) was a squeaker; Bush barely took it.

So people are arguing that the GOP needs to change. That anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-big government, and anti-amnesty are not good platforms.

But is that really the truth?

I think it may be more simple than that --- the GOP has simply not fielded a good candidate.

1992 - George H.W. Bush
1996 - Bob Dole
2000, 2004 - George W. Bush
2008 - John McCain
2012 - Mitt Romney

Do any of them strike you as great candidates? Bob Dole was arguably the worst candidate either party has fielded since Reagan.

The GOP is picking old guys with little charisma and poor speaking abilities.

The Dems are picking young, charismatic people like Obama, Clinton (both), and Gore. They brought a popular environmentalist, the first African-American president, the best speakers since JFK, and (almost) the first woman president.

That's why, for instance, the young vote is going for the Dems -- their candidates are "cooler."

Agree?

I do agree with this, for your comment Beef, I think those qualities of democratic candidates are very good at coming back to what Redban said. However the democratic candidates in recent times tend to be younger therefore more popular:

1992: Bush (68) vs. Clinton (46)
1996: Clinton (50) vs. Dole (72)
2000: Bush (54) vs. Gore (52)
2004: Bush (58) vs. Kerry (62)
2008: Obama (47) vs. McCain (72)
2012: Obama (51) vs. Romney (65)

The age difference seems to also represent how close the popular vote was too. Popular candidates seem to be younger, and republicans have got to find younger, more popular candidates.

Also I do think right now democrats are the popular choice in America and people vote for democrats because it's the popular thing to do. Do you think urban, more diverse, less religious, and more socially free sound popular? Probably yes. And do you think rural, more religious, more economically free, and more white sound popular? Probably not. The republican coalition is dying, and they will have to find another coalition or rebuild their coalition, and they will eventually.

Just something else I want to touch on: Democrats may not like hearing this, but their base is more uninformed. Most democrats on this forum are very informed, but the majority of voters out in the country are uninformed. It's just the facts. Why do you think republicans turnout better? Now, this is not to say republicans are super informed, because the majority of them aren't either, but more than democrats. Older whiter people pay more attention to news and politics than younger diverse individuals and therefore know what their voting for, even if it's the unpopular thing to do. I think a massive amount of uninformed voters in this country (on both sides) has made election politics frustrating for Republicans especially. There is still some frustration on the democratic side with states Texas where many Hispanics don't show up to vote. Overall I think uninformed voters has made us more party-line people and less about choosing candidates for their stances on issues. That might have something to do with republicans failure as well.

You may not agree with what I'm saying, but it's the truth. Young energetic speakers who could motivate you will almost always win against a dull old speaker who could put you to sleep. And with many uninformed voters in this country on both sides who can easily be convinced, it's a win for the younger more energetic candidate.

[barfbag]

I have a problem with the way this question is asked. We've won 2 of the last 4 and it usually goes 8 years between each party. Democrats will say about 2000, but according to the American system we won. Clinton won both 90's elections, but the GOP won 3 before that. It's not like the Democrats in 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988. Now those were bad candidates.

[Mister Mets]

Well, it could be selection bias, looking at a sample that excludes Republican wins in 1980, 1984 and 1988.

There is a tendency for a party to keep the White House for two terms, and then get kicked out. So, it could be that Republicans lost because of that, or whatever correlates to that. But the losses are then easily explained.
1992- Voter fatigue after three consecutive terms (the longest stint in the White House in generations.)
1996- Charismatic incumbent whose party took the White House in the earlier cycle won reelection.
2008- Voter fatigue. Incumbent blamed for severe economic problems.
2012- Charismatic incumbent whose party took the White House in the earlier cycle won reelection.

Even if you agree with the Supreme Court, 2000 was so close that it could have gone either way, although there was a combination of a fairly popular Incumbent Prez, and a last minute October surprise with the revelation of Bush's drunk driving arrest.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

In what universe is Al Gore charismatic?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And have you noticed that in all of the above scenarios, there has been legitimate, superior competition to the one that eventually won?

Pat Buchanan in '92 (although I disagree with many of his views, his heart was in the right place and he was certainly much more charismatic than Bush).

Steve Forbes in '96 (a little awkward, but still the best out of a mediocre field).

In '00 and '04, Bush was a good candidate. I don't like him on a political level, but he was hardly a bad candidate.

Ron Paul in '08. Definitely could have won - he could have gotten in some great trash-talk on the former administration which might have swung independents and even some democrats with an anti-establishment streak.

Jon Huntsman in '12. Holy wow, Huntsman was the perfect candidate.

The problem is that republicans are just bad at picking candidates. Usually, there's a pretty good field to choose from, but because of Iowa, South Carolina, and to a lesser degree Nevada, "the worst face takes first place".

I don't see how one could say that Pat Buchanan is good in 1992 but Jon Huntsman was so in 2012. I would be inclined to say that neither were good more or less perfect as you say Huntsman was. Huntsman was boring and as far as I am concerned was out to sabotage the GOP in 2012 so that he could run in 2016 as their "moderate hero savior" after Bachmann or Perry led them to a 1964 style result. There was no greater proof of this then is strategy to "win" the nomination, which seemed to only guarrantee one result and that is Romney would be aced out and afterwards he would face an uphill battle againt a TP candidate in SC. It is hard to see him as the "perfect candidate for 2012" when his strategy most likely entailed throwing it to Obama.

As for Ron Paul, simply trash talking the Bush administration wouldn't have won the election and it should be noted that there are large segments of the GOP that still liked Bush and would have been inclined to stay home for a candidate that insisted on attacking Bush too much. Many social conservatives were labeling McCain as a Pro-Choice when he clearly wasn't simply because he was defined as a moderate (which his why McCain gained so much off that appearence at Rick Warren's event that August) and I recall that Hostettler in the Indiana Senate primary was being defined as a RINO on some sites. Paul would soon find himself labeled a rino because of his attacks on Bush and deviance from the strong defense/Bush doctrine foreign policy crowd, and would lose millions of Christian Righties as a result. Obama would also successfully scare off the young crowd from voting for Paul and keep them on his side by pointing out Paul's positions on economic policy.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It's social issues.  People, especially moderates, think Republicans are too extreme on social issues (abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, etc.).  I don't think Republicans need to move to the left/center to win the presidency, though, they just need to downplay social issues and focus more on economic issues, like taxes and spending.  The Conservative Party in Canada has done this with pretty good success, so the GOP should try it, too.

[barfbag]

Other than Bob Dole I don't think we've had a "bad candidate."

[ElectionsGuy]

Other than Bob Dole I don't think we've had a "bad candidate."

John McCain?? I thought Mitt Romney was good all through the way, but he also made some massive screw ups.

[illegaloperation]

It's social issues.  People, especially moderates, think Republicans are too extreme on social issues (abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, etc.).  I don't think Republicans need to move to the left/center to win the presidency, though, they just need to downplay social issues and focus more on economic issues, like taxes and spending.  The Conservative Party in Canada has done this with pretty good success, so the GOP should try it, too.

The Canadian's Conservative Party governs to the left of the US's Democratic Party.

As you might consider it, "A bunch of commie(s) govern Canada".

[HagridOfTheDeep]

That really isn't true. We have socialist institutions that are so engrained in our society that we could never change them, but the Conservative Party of Canada is not especially liberal.

[hopper]

McCain wasn't a bad politician in '08 it was just Obama made him look old politically in the one debate I watched.

George W. Bush at least he appealed to Hispanics so he had that aspect going for him.

Dole was old and Romney was stiff. Romney's rhetoric on immigration(i.e. self deport) and abortion issues(send the issue back to the states) hurt him as well.

[Indy Texas]

If it's bad candidates, then how the hell can one of the two major political parties not field a decent candidate in more than twenty years?

And if it's because the "real Americans"/"real conservatives"/whatever are constantly getting sidelined and subverted by the "Establishment"/"Country Club Republicans"/"RINOS", then why are these real 'Murricans so foolish as to continue giving their time and money and votes to a party that is supposedly so disdainful of them and doesn't share their values? If they really represent a silent majority of Americans, why don't they leave and form their own party?

[barfbag]

Other than Bob Dole I don't think we've had a "bad candidate."

John McCain?? I thought Mitt Romney was good all through the way, but he also made some massive screw ups.

McCain had the resume and respected experience. He was popular until the election.

[ElectionsGuy]

Other than Bob Dole I don't think we've had a "bad candidate."

John McCain?? I thought Mitt Romney was good all through the way, but he also made some massive screw ups.

McCain had the resume and respected experience. He was popular until the election.

True that, I don't think any republican could've won in 2008 after Bush put us in a recession. But I do think a more energetic candidate would've done a little bit better.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

McCain was the strongest GOP candidate in 2008.  Every poll said so.  And he COULD have won, except (A) he picked Palin as his running mate (effectively sealing his fate) and (B) he embarrassed himself when he suspended his campaign to address the financial crisis, and then came off as having no solutions to the problem.  McCain MIGHT have won the election had he sided with the coalition of some House liberals and a group of conservatives led by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) in opposing the "too big to fail" bailouts; such a thing would have shaken up the dynamic of the election; folks could have voted for him as a vehicle of venting anger, and the anger at the big banks ran (and still runs) deep.  He didn't, though, and he ended up appearing more clueless on the financial meltdown than he was.

Romney's credentials would have, prior to 2008, made him a perfectly fine GOP candidate, but the nutty base of the GOP convinced Romney that he had to lie and contort himself to get the nomination.  Romney had a plan for Healthcare, he had implemented it, and it was along the lines of the plan National Republicans has been pushing for decades, but he was required to repudiate it in order to get the nomination.  Isn't that a bit odd; requiring your party's standard bearer for President to refute his signature accomplishment to be nominated.  So Romney barely spoke of his GOVERNMENT experience until it was too late.  This forced Romney to fudge his resume and state that he was a "businessman" who "knew how to create jobs".  This turned out to be a false narrative; Romney was a WEALTH creator, but not a JOB creator, and he was not only made to look foolish when this inconsistency was exposed, but it drew attention to the issue of Romney's Tax Returns, an issue Romney never recovered from. 

Even being a "leveraged buyout guy" was something Romney could have made work had he not made false claims of being a "job creator".  Romney's business record, by all accounts, was impeccable; he was the opposite of Bush 43, a legacy with a string of failures to his name.  As head of Bain Capital, Romney was a man who took over troubled companies and required them to live within their means.  Many went out of business, but many were not going to make it anyway.  People would have been receptive to THAT message if it had been accompanied by a truthful narrative of Romney's real background and a plan of action that would have shown how Romney would have applied his experience in this area to our national situation.  But the nutty base of the GOP will pounce on any candidate who will suggest any kind of reasonable solution that doesn't include further tax cuts and trashing the safety net in its entirety.

[Frodo]

According to some, you didn't turn out enough white folks. 

[barfbag]

According to some, you didn't turn out enough white folks. 

Both parties pick at what they could've done better but the nature of the times seems to always decide the presidency. Exceptions could be made for 1960 and 2000.

[DS0816]

I think it may be more simple than that --- the GOP has simply not fielded a good candidate.

1992 - George H.W. Bush
1996 - Bob Dole
2000, 2004 - George W. Bush
2008 - John McCain
2012 - Mitt Romney

Do any of them strike you as great candidates?…

Agree?

No.

Here is just part of the failure of today's Republican Party…


Republicans and Democrats first competed against each other in 1856.

In 1860 the Republicans won their first presidential election with 16th president Abraham Lincoln of Illinois.

Considering realignment, ask yourself: Strictly between the north versus the south, which of these two has produced more presidential election victories?


It's the north.


North
01. 1860—Republican
02. 1864—Republican
03. 1868—Republican
04. 1872—Republican
05. 1876—Republican
06. 1880—Republican
07. 1888—Republican
08. 1896—Republican
09. 1900—Republican
10. 1904—Republican
11. 1908—Republican
12. 1920—Republican
13 1924—Republican
14. 1928—Republican
15. 1952—Republican
16. 1956—Republican
17. 1968—Republican
18. 1972—Republican
19. 1980—Republican
20. 1992—Democratic
21. 1996—Democratic
22. 2008—Democratic
23. 2012—Democratic

South
01. 1856—Democratic
02. 1884—Democratic
03. 1892—Democratic
04. 1912—Democratic
05. 1916—Democratic
06. 1932—Democratic
07. 1936—Democratic
08. 1940—Democratic
09. 1944—Democratic
10. 1948—Democratic
11. 1960—Democratic
12. 1964—Democratic
13. 1976—Democratic
14. 1984—Republican
15. 1988—Republican
16. 2000—Republican
17. 2004—Republican


In the 40 elections since 1856, the north won 57.50 percent of those election cycles while the south won 42.50 percent of them.

The realigning presidential elections (following the theory of Walter Dean Burnham) came in 1860 (Republican; seven of the next nine), 1896 (Republican; seven of the next nine), 1932 (Democratic; seven of the next nine), 1968 (Republican; seven of the next ten), and count me among those listing 2008 (Democratic; thus far two in as many cycles).

Of these realigning elections, strictly between today's two major parties, the north had the advantages with the realigning presidential elections of 1860, 1896, for at least half of 1968, and mark down 2008. The south had the advantage with the realigning election of 1932.


Another thing to consider: When I refer to the south and the north, lots of time I'm thinking strictly of the eleven states of the Old Confederacy [south] and the nine states of the Rust Belt [north].

A question: Since the Republicans first competed in 1856, how many presidential elections were won without carriage of a single state from the Old Confederacy? The answer is nine. They were in 1860, 1864, 1880, 1888, 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, and 1924.

A second question: Since the Republicans first competed in 1856, how many presidential elections were won without carriage of a single state from the Rust Belt? The answer is that it has never happened.

[tpfkaw]

snip

That seems rather arbitrary, the Confederate states were won by your "Northern" winner in 1868, 1872, 1956, 1968 (a plurality of EVs), 1972, 1980, as well as 1928 if you consider Oklahoma to be a Confederate state (Indian and Oklahoma territories fought with the Confederacy).  Your "Southern" winners would still have won without the Confederate states in 1892, 1912, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1960, 1964, 1984, and 1988.  And how is Reagan "Northern" in 1980 and "Southern" in 1984, while Nixon isn't in '68/'72?

[barfbag]

I think it may be more simple than that --- the GOP has simply not fielded a good candidate.

1992 - George H.W. Bush
1996 - Bob Dole
2000, 2004 - George W. Bush
2008 - John McCain
2012 - Mitt Romney

Do any of them strike you as great candidates?…

Agree?

No.

Here is just part of the failure of today's Republican Party…


Republicans and Democrats first competed against each other in 1856.

In 1860 the Republicans won their first presidential election with 16th president Abraham Lincoln of Illinois.

Considering realignment, ask yourself: Strictly between the north versus the south, which of these two has produced more presidential election victories?


It's the north.


North
01. 1860—Republican
02. 1864—Republican
03. 1868—Republican
04. 1872—Republican
05. 1876—Republican
06. 1880—Republican
07. 1888—Republican
08. 1896—Republican
09. 1900—Republican
10. 1904—Republican
11. 1908—Republican
12. 1920—Republican
13 1924—Republican
14. 1928—Republican
15. 1952—Republican
16. 1956—Republican
17. 1968—Republican
18. 1972—Republican
19. 1980—Republican
20. 1992—Democratic
21. 1996—Democratic
22. 2008—Democratic
23. 2012—Democratic

South
01. 1856—Democratic
02. 1884—Democratic
03. 1892—Democratic
04. 1912—Democratic
05. 1916—Democratic
06. 1932—Democratic
07. 1936—Democratic
08. 1940—Democratic
09. 1944—Democratic
10. 1948—Democratic
11. 1960—Democratic
12. 1964—Democratic
13. 1976—Democratic
14. 1984—Republican
15. 1988—Republican
16. 2000—Republican
17. 2004—Republican


In the 40 elections since 1856, the north won 57.50 percent of those election cycles while the south won 42.50 percent of them.

The realigning presidential elections (following the theory of Walter Dean Burnham) came in 1860 (Republican; seven of the next nine), 1896 (Republican; seven of the next nine), 1932 (Democratic; seven of the next nine), 1968 (Republican; seven of the next ten), and count me among those listing 2008 (Democratic; thus far two in as many cycles).

Of these realigning elections, strictly between today's two major parties, the north had the advantages with the realigning presidential elections of 1860, 1896, for at least half of 1968, and mark down 2008. The south had the advantage with the realigning election of 1932.


Another thing to consider: When I refer to the south and the north, lots of time I'm thinking strictly of the eleven states of the Old Confederacy [south] and the nine states of the Rust Belt [north].

A question: Since the Republicans first competed in 1856, how many presidential elections were won without carriage of a single state from the Old Confederacy? The answer is nine. They were in 1860, 1864, 1880, 1888, 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, and 1924.

A second question: Since the Republicans first competed in 1856, how many presidential elections were won without carriage of a single state from the Rust Belt? The answer is that it has never happened.

What exactly are you saying? There have been years where the winning candidate would've been able to win without the northeast or the south. Do you have the winners from the north and south for each election?

[DS0816]

snip

That seems rather arbitrary, the Confederate states were won by your "Northern" winner in 1868, 1872, 1956, 1968 (a plurality of EVs), 1972, 1980, as well as 1928 if you consider Oklahoma to be a Confederate state (Indian and Oklahoma territories fought with the Confederacy).  Your "Southern" winners would still have won without the Confederate states in 1892, 1912, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1960, 1964, 1984, and 1988.  And how is Reagan "Northern" in 1980 and "Southern" in 1984, while Nixon isn't in '68/'72?

Not all Old Confederacy states were won by Ulysses Grant. But Grant winning states from the Old Confederacy is representative of the Republicans back then and the Democrats right now. That is, when winning the presidency, the Republicans Then/Democrats Now have been able to carry select states from the Old Confederacy. Compare that to the Democrats Then/Republicans Now, and they win all of the Old Confederacy states with presidential elections in the party prevails. Right now's Democratic Blue Firewall was back then's Republican Red Firewall. A huge electoral advantage that reduces the party, with its base states in the Old Confederacy, to have to thin the needle to stitch together victory in the Electoral College. (This is also example why I don't buy into imaginative notions, here, about Pennsylvania on the verge of flipping to the Republicans.)

By the way: I was not mentioning the home state of any given presidential candidate. I'm referring, much, to the base states of the two major parties. That it used to be that the South was for the Democrats and the North for the Republicans; of course, we recognize the opposite for today.

When Ronald Reagan unseated Jimmy Carter, in 1980, much of the south performed with margins less than his popular-vote spread of R+9.75. Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee were examples of state margins which were less than his national number. (The opposite happened for Reagan's re-election in 1984.) By contrast, Reagan carried his home state of California along with the likes of New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Washington by margins which exceeded his national number of 1980.

When Ronald Reagan was re-elected in 1984, over Walter Mondale, ten of the eleven states of the Old Confederacy produced margins which exceeded his national R+18.22. The only exception was Tennessee, which has been noted at this site as a margin of R+16.27.

In 1988, George Bush's carriage of all eleven states in the Old Confederacy yielded margins which exceeded his national R+7.73. (Louisiana, the state which hosted that year's Republican convention, was his lowest: R+10.21. Tenn., in 1988, turned out to be the only state which shifted Republican in 1988. And Michael Dukakis's pickup states were reminiscent of 40 years earlier with losing Republican Thomas Dewey: Not one of them were among the Old Confederacy.)

In 1984, Calif. and Wash. scaled back their margins; so Reagan underperformed in those state relative his national outcome. So, I could delay the listing by one cycle and give the North 24, not 23, of those winning cycles. And I could give the South 16, not 17, of those prevailing cycles. (That would make it 60 percent for the North and 40 percent for the South.)

My point is that, if we were to use this as an exercise with pitting these two regions against each other, it would still be undeniable that more presidential victories have come from the [base states of the] North than the South. This is a huge problem for today's Republican Party.

[barfbag]

In the last 16 elections, the northern states seem to have better records than the southern states for the presidency. I believe the only states with losing records are Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama.

[Mister Mets]

It's worth noting that it's been a while since Republicans lost an election they clearly should have won.

Democrats have at least two of those on their record: 1976 and 1988. Both of those were bigger than Republican losses in 2008 or 2012.

In what universe is Al Gore charismatic?

For his faults, Gore was probably a stronger candidate than anyone else Democrats had available in 2000 (Bradley, Kerry, Kerrey, Gephardt, Dean, Wellstone, Jackson.)

That was partly because Republican victories in 1994 meant the Democrats had a weak bench of statewide office holders in 2000.