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

[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.

[barfbag]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[barfbag]

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.

[barfbag]

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.

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.

[barfbag]

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.

[barfbag]

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.