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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:01:28 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Republican failure to win the presidency -- is it just bad candidates?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Republican failure to win the presidency -- is it just bad candidates?  (Read 3522 times)
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2013, 09:28:27 PM »

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.


Carter won in 1976. Wink

I am trying to figure out what you meant in its place though.
Logged
bballrox4717
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 949


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2013, 09:39:38 PM »

W Bush was a great candidate in 2000. Though McCain was good, he fell straight into Obama's campaign narratives. Dole was a bad candidate in what was bound to be a bad election cycle for Republicans as Clinton was running circles around the party politically. Romney was a bad candidate who was only close because he kicked Obama's butt in the first debate.

[/quote]
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.

Some people would argue Republicans should have won 2012. I'm not one of them though.

Nobody would have beaten Bush in 1988. The only reason he was beat in 1992 was because the end of the Cold War ended the unity of the Republican base when he raised taxes. Clinton's campaign was flawless when it came to making it a wedge issue and focusing on a topic (the economy) that Bush had no business talking about.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2013, 09:57:30 PM »

W Bush was a great candidate in 2000. Though McCain was good, he fell straight into Obama's campaign narratives. Dole was a bad candidate in what was bound to be a bad election cycle for Republicans as Clinton was running circles around the party politically. Romney was a bad candidate who was only close because he kicked Obama's butt in the first debate.

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.

Some people would argue Republicans should have won 2012. I'm not one of them though.

Nobody would have beaten Bush in 1988. The only reason he was beat in 1992 was because the end of the Cold War ended the unity of the Republican base when he raised taxes. Clinton's campaign was flawless when it came to making it a wedge issue and focusing on a topic (the economy) that Bush had no business talking about.

[/quote]

I'm not sure what was meant by 1976 and while it's rare to have back to back presidents from the same party, I don't know of a single Democrat worth mentioning as competitive in 1988. Republicans should've won in 1960 and 2012. Those are the only two I'm convinced on. I thought Romney would go over 300 EV. Amongst early voters, Romney was ahead 54-45 while in 2008 Obama was ahead 57-42. We're looking at a 24 point swing.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2013, 08:52:48 AM »
« Edited: July 27, 2013, 08:56:43 AM by 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.


Carter won in 1976. Wink

I am trying to figure out what you meant in its place though.
Sorry, 1980.

It was the only time a party got kicked out of White House after just one term in the last 100+ years.

And 1988 is the only time in my mother's lifetime that a party kept the White House for more than two terms.

So it does seem that 1980 and 1988 can be considered two elections the Democrats should have won. Instead, Republicans won 425+ electoral votes both times.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2013, 11:53:15 AM »

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.


Carter won in 1976. Wink

I am trying to figure out what you meant in its place though.
Sorry, 1980.

It was the only time a party got kicked out of White House after just one term in the last 100+ years.

And 1988 is the only time in my mother's lifetime that a party kept the White House for more than two terms.

So it does seem that 1980 and 1988 can be considered two elections the Democrats should have won. Instead, Republicans won 425+ electoral votes both times.

Very true, presidents are mostly re-elected.
Logged
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2013, 05:00:32 PM »

It was the only time a party got kicked out of White House after just one term in the last 100+ years.

And 1988 is the only time in my mother's lifetime that a party kept the White House for more than two terms.

So it does seem that 1980 and 1988 can be considered two elections the Democrats should have won. Instead, Republicans won 425+ electoral votes both times.

It was during the Republican realignment. Now we're under the Democratic realignment. These surges last for some 30 year, then another one starts, usually. The 1980 was the peak of the Republican era. The peak of the Democratic era is just around the corner I believe. Probably 2016 or 2020 will be that year, just like 1984 was the one for Republicans.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2013, 07:32:01 PM »

It was the only time a party got kicked out of White House after just one term in the last 100+ years.

And 1988 is the only time in my mother's lifetime that a party kept the White House for more than two terms.

So it does seem that 1980 and 1988 can be considered two elections the Democrats should have won. Instead, Republicans won 425+ electoral votes both times.

It was during the Republican realignment. Now we're under the Democratic realignment. These surges last for some 30 year, then another one starts, usually. The 1980 was the peak of the Republican era. The peak of the Democratic era is just around the corner I believe. Probably 2016 or 2020 will be that year, just like 1984 was the one for Republicans.

Our party will do just fine. Both parties take 8 year turns in the white house.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2013, 11:30:51 PM »

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.


Carter won in 1976. Wink

I am trying to figure out what you meant in its place though.
Sorry, 1980.

It was the only time a party got kicked out of White House after just one term in the last 100+ years.

And 1988 is the only time in my mother's lifetime that a party kept the White House for more than two terms.

So it does seem that 1980 and 1988 can be considered two elections the Democrats should have won. Instead, Republicans won 425+ electoral votes both times.

Very true, presidents are mostly re-elected.
It's not just that Presidents are mostly re-elected, but that the other ones who lost (George HW Bush in 1988, Gerald Ford in 1976, Taft in 1912) did so when their party had held the White House for some time.

Carter is the first since McKinley's election to get kicked out after one term of his party in the White House, in twelve reversals of the party in power in the White House.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2013, 11:41:36 PM »

It was the only time a party got kicked out of White House after just one term in the last 100+ years.

And 1988 is the only time in my mother's lifetime that a party kept the White House for more than two terms.

So it does seem that 1980 and 1988 can be considered two elections the Democrats should have won. Instead, Republicans won 425+ electoral votes both times.

It was during the Republican realignment. Now we're under the Democratic realignment. These surges last for some 30 year, then another one starts, usually. The 1980 was the peak of the Republican era. The peak of the Democratic era is just around the corner I believe. Probably 2016 or 2020 will be that year, just like 1984 was the one for Republicans.
I don't know if it was a Republican alignment in the 70s and 80s (since Carter won a close election after Watergate) as much as it was bad decisions by the Democratic party.

Though that's obviously something the Republican party can repeat.

Even if you believe demographic trends will make the Democrats the favorites in the next few elections, it doesn't seem likely that it will help the party get the 44 state/ 489 electoral vote win Reagan got in 1980 and exceeded in 1984.

I wrote this elsewhere, but we don't even know what the current trends are.

The 2012 Presidential election can fit three historic narratives. We won’t know for some time which summary is the most accurate.

I tend to agree with the middle of the road narrative. The United States has a two party system in which there’s currently a level of parity between Democrats and Republicans. Since Eisenhower, the following tendency has predicted 14 out of 16 presidential elections: Voters select a party for two term in the White House, and then go and pick the other guys. Obama’s victory, while Republicans kept the House and expanded their number of Governors from 29 to at least 30, fits this version. It’s possible that at some point we’ll have a realigning election giving one party dominance like the Republicans had after the Civil War, and Democrats had after the Great Depression, but it hasn’t happened yet.

Then there’s the argument that favors Democrats. Bill Clinton seized the center in 1992, and we’re already in an era of Democratic dominance. Since then, Democrats won three landslide elections and one close election (and the electoral vote wasn’t all that close), while Republicans won one close election and one possibly fraudulent election. Meanwhile, the changing demographics of the country, as 50,000 Hispanic-Americans become eligible to vote every day, as well as changing views on social issues, are just making the electorate more liberal. Republicans will win a few presidential elections, as Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson did in the otherwise Republican era from 1860-1928, and Eisenhower did in the Democratic era from 1932-1964. But the next Presidents are more likely than not to be Democrats.

A conservative version of this narrative is that the nation is becoming more redistributionist, and that is why Democrats now have the edge.

The least convincing claim is that this is still an era of Republican dominance. By this argument, since liberalism died with LBJ, Republicans have won 7 of the last 12 presidential elections, and the party is favored to win the next two, as it has been three generations since Democrats held the White House for more than two terms. Democrats only get the White House under the right set of circumstances. Their only successful nominees since Nixon have been Southern Governors, or a rare candidate who fit a very specific demographic sweet spot: a Midwestern African-American elected to statewide office. And the only Republicans who lose are moderates who weren’t able to excite the base/ silent majority the way Nixon, Reagan and George W Bush did.

The three scenarios have implications for the 2016 presidential election. If we’re in an age of parity, the Republicans are more likely to win, but Democrats have a shot at keeping the White House in the event of a catastrophically bad nominee or fantastic approval ratings for the outgoing President. If this is an era of Democratic dominance, the reverse is true. My concern is that too many Republicans will be comforted by the final argument, and decide that to nominate the most conservative candidate the next time around, regardless of the individual’s political gifts, or lack thereof.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2013, 06:39:37 PM »

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.

Whatever one's take on W's ability to govern, I fail to see how one can seriously argue that he wasn't a great campaigner.  He was folksy, able to create a sense of connection with voters, and had an apparent skill at ad libbing.  (Whether he actually connected or ad libbed is irrelevant. When it comes to campaigning, perception is all that matters.) As a campaigner, he easily is the best the GOP has had since Reagan, and arguably he was as good as Reagan on the campaign trail.  It wasn't just the machinations of Karl Rove that got Dubya elected and reelected to the White House.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2013, 10:11:32 PM »

Ok so a president gets re-elected and we're evaluating the strength of recent Republican candidates? This sounds like wishful liberal thinking. Most presidents are re-elected. Jimmy Carter would've come very close or been re-elected without the Iran Contra scandal or with a better economy. George Bush lost re-election, but it was after twelve years of the same party in the White House. Other than these two very explainable anomalies, we have to go back to Herbert Hoover who only lost because of the depression. So now we're up to three huge and very explainable anomalies. In 1912, Taft ran against three other candidates and it's therefore not indicative. We have four major anomalies. Basically, I'm saying that a president being re-elected is nothing new to our history. Go ahead and analyze the 19th century if you want to. This is 2013. In eight years we'll be asking if it's just bad candidates for Democrats. John McCain and Mitt Romney were both better than George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and even Jimmy Carter who benefited from Watergate in 1976. He really wasn't a good candidate. I'll say that at least Romney was better than Bob Dole in terms of candidacy and electability while John McCain was evenly matched.
Logged
Non Swing Voter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,181


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2013, 11:03:10 AM »

It was the only time a party got kicked out of White House after just one term in the last 100+ years.

And 1988 is the only time in my mother's lifetime that a party kept the White House for more than two terms.

So it does seem that 1980 and 1988 can be considered two elections the Democrats should have won. Instead, Republicans won 425+ electoral votes both times.

It was during the Republican realignment. Now we're under the Democratic realignment. These surges last for some 30 year, then another one starts, usually. The 1980 was the peak of the Republican era. The peak of the Democratic era is just around the corner I believe. Probably 2016 or 2020 will be that year, just like 1984 was the one for Republicans.

This post is exactly correct.

One can argue back and forth about the electoral college, but there is no question that in this current era, Democrats have a major advantage with regard to winning the popular vote, which the original poster was discussing...

Democrats can count on racking up huge margins in at least 3 big states: California, New York, and Illinois.

Republicans can only count on a large margin in one: Texas.

The last really big state, Florida, will continue to split its vote pretty evenly. 

Republicans simply don't have a region to offset Democratic vote totals right now.  The Southeast votes Republican but by small margins overall because of the 30-40% floor that Democrats get with black voters.

Appalachia is really the Republicans best bet to rack up huge margins, but that region isn't heavily populated and is at least offset by New England and the mid-atlantic, where Democrats rack up pretty big margins in (non-New York) states like Massachusetts, New Jersey and Maryland.

The great plains states deliver a bunch of votes but they are also sparsely populated. 

The next biggest population center would seem to be the upper Midwest, where Republicans can probably compete in in the future, but they won't deliver solid margins for the party.

So, that to me seems like the main reason the GOP consistently is losing the popular vote.  The map just doesn't favor them.  I don't think it's a candidate issue as much.

For them to win the popular vote they would absolutely have to limit the Democratic margin in New York + California + Illinois to less than 4 million votes total in my opinion. 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.043 seconds with 12 queries.