So what would happen if Obama won?

posted at 12:05 pm on November 30, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Every once in a while you need to bring yourself back down to Earth and make sure you’re prepared for hard times, no matter how optimistic you may be feeling. No, we’re not talking about the coming zombie apocalypse or the idea that the Patriots might still win the AFC East title this year. This is even more dark and foreboding. What would happen if Obama wins the election next November? That’s pretty much the point of a lengthy essay at Outside the Beltway by Doug Mataconis this week.

After noting that Obama’s prospects are certainly looking dim, Doug reminds us that nothing is ever a sure thing and it doesn’t pay to get too comfortable before all the votes have been cast. So what would happen to the Republican Party in the event of such a loss? Well, it largely depends on who he lost to.

How the GOP reacts to a loss in 2012 would depend, at least in part, on who ends up winning the nomination. If the nominee is Mitt Romney as many expect, including yours truly, then the initial spin from conservatives, the Tea Party movement, and the blogger and talk radio crowd is likely to be that the party lost because the nominee wasn’t conservative enough. This was the same argument that many Republicans made after Bob Dole lost in 1996, and after John McCain lost in 2008. In reality, of course, it’s not at all clear that it was a lack of conservative bona fides that doomed either of these campaigns…

If Romney is the nominee and he loses, it’s likely the reaction will be the same and that, at least, initially we’ll see the activists in the GOP go on another purity quest. On Capitol Hill, this would likely have the impact of making the House GOP even less willing to compromise than it has been since the 2010 elections for fear of facing trouble during the 2014 midterms. The danger this poses for the GOP, of course, is that a re-elected President Obama is likely to have at least some public opinion boost behind him in 2013, as well as the ability to claim a mandate…

What if the nominee isn’t Mitt Romney, but one of the Tea Party favored candidates, the most realistic of those being either Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich?

This may be the best alternative of all for the GOP, because while it’s likely to lead to the same kind of reassessment that a Romney loss would, it be more likely to bring about the kind of changes that would benefit the party in the long run. The Tea Party hasn’t been an entirely bad thing for the GOP. In fact, I’d say that without John McCain’s loss in 2008 and the rise of the Tea Party, we likely would not have seen the GOP take control of Congress in 2010. However, as we learned in 2010 and as we’re learning to some extent during the early month of the 2012 election cycle, the movement has also caused the party to go off on bizarre tangents at times and to take insane stands like appearing to be willing to take the nation to the brink of financial chaos back in August. The “no compromise” position that the Tea Party represents may be good for internal party consumption and it may make the true believers happy, but it’s not good government and it’s probably not a good long term political strategy. A loss in 2012 that gets pinned on the movement would likely re-energize the “establishment” and more traditional conservatives in the party and cause a backlash against some of the more radical elements of the Tea Party. In the long run, this would probably be good for the GOP.

As long as that excerpt is, there’s a lot more of it at the link, so before you draw conclusions, read the full explanation. But with that in mind, I have a couple of thoughts to add.

At the highest level, I agree that the Republican reaction (and almost unavoidable civil war) will depend entirely on who the nominee is. If it’s Mitt and he manages to lose, (which will be something of a trick since he polls better against Obama than any of his fellow candidates) then we’ll hear the same thing we heard about McCain following 2008. The finger pointing would be immediate, but we’d have to wait for a lot of data to find out if the base actually “stayed home” for a change, (they pretty much never do) or if we failed to make the sale to the middle third of the country again like last time. Beyond that, I think Doug is pretty much correct. It would likely fuel an even larger four year swing of rebellion against the perceived “establishment Republican Party” as well as another long stretch of Congress accomplishing essentially nothing.

But if the nominee turns out to be the “Anti-Romney candidate” (insert name here) and they lose, then a different dynamic plays out. The finger pointing ensues, but in the opposite direction. The conversation will run along the lines of, “You Tea Partiers! You just HAD to have it your way, didn’t you? You couldn’t just nominate Mitt. Noooooo. You had to put in another Christine O’Donnell candidate. You’d rather lose the war than win a battle!

Of course, the third scenario is the one where the Republican wins. No matter whether it’s Romney or Not-Romney, everyone sits back down quietly for the most part and breaths a collective sigh of relief. And if that’s the case, the coat tails will likely take the Senate back over to the GOP side and then the Republicans will get to prove whether or not their theories can actually improve things before we begin the whole shooting match all over again a year later.

I have a headache already.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

FWIW: Remember that this comes from the left-leaning The Hill. Operation Psy-Ops?
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/196151-sarah-palin-still-untried

onlineanalyst on November 30, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Obama would be devastated if he won. A job cuts into golf and hobnobbing.

pat on November 30, 2011 at 12:08 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1TxiVhrkZA

VegasRick on November 30, 2011 at 12:09 PM

I think some states would debate whether or not to stay in the union.

Oil Can on November 30, 2011 at 12:09 PM

GOP finger-pointing will be the last of our problems. Full-scale actual national bankruptcy on the order of Greece will be ongoing by 2013. NO ONE will lend us enough to cover our YEAR-TO-YEAR operational shortfall. And Obama will retreat farther into golfing and speech-making, with ZERO leadership to get us out of the situation. The second Great Depression will be at hand.

michaelo on November 30, 2011 at 12:12 PM

If he wins, he should promptly be impeached by the House. I’m really not sure what they’re waiting on for this.

SouthernGent on November 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM

If Obama wins, I’ll pack my bags a move to the same place Alec Baldwin moved to………….

Rovin on November 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM

What did the Mayans think of that?

Chip on November 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM

If we win the Senate, we could keep Obama under control, barring a RINO petting zoo event with Snowe/Collins/Murkowski/McCain/Cornyn idiots wanting to get along with Princess Barry.

portlandon on November 30, 2011 at 12:14 PM

This may be the best alternative of all for the GOP, because while it’s likely to lead to the same kind of reassessment that a Romney loss would, it be more likely to bring about the kind of changes that would benefit the party in the long run.

This is pure unadulterated BS.
The Deomcrats have been trying to sell the story for decades and it’s no truer now than it was before. Making Republicans more like Democrats is suicide.
Just ask Microsoft how their “iPod-like” Zune is doing.

J_Crater on November 30, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Armageddon would be not just if Obama won, but if the GOP not only managed to not gain back the Senate, despite 23 Democratic seats being up for grabs, but also managed to lose the House back to Nancy Pelosi. If Obama wins re-election while the Republicans take over the Senate and regain the House, then it won’t be due as much to turnout as it will that the Republican nominee for president ran an incredibly crappy campaign — which of course, given the major disadvantage within the big media any GOP nominee would start out with (yes, even the currently beloved-by-the-media GOP saint Myron Huntsman) is a lot easier to do unless your campaign is firing on all cylinders and your candidate doesn’t end up spending most of his time playing defense instead of going after the incumbent’s flaws.

jon1979 on November 30, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Yeah, um. Newt’s not Christine O’Donnell.

The two cases (if Newt won) would be ridiculous to compare. Castle had the win locked up. Romney doesn’t.

nickj116 on November 30, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Think of it this way – one way or another – 2012 will be the last opportunity to vote El Presidente Downgrade out of office.

Chip on November 30, 2011 at 12:15 PM

A loss in 2012 that gets pinned on the movement would likely re-energize the “establishment” and more traditional conservatives in the party and cause a backlash against some of the more radical elements of the Tea Party. In the long run, this would probably be good for the GOP.

Not sure this is correct. We’ve watched the traditional GOPers make nice with the donks to get things done,….where has that led us?

a capella on November 30, 2011 at 12:15 PM

If the GOP doesn’t win the presidency and both houses of congress in 2012, the question of what happens within the GOP will be a footnote to be discussed by historians of other, surviving nations.

Vashta.Nerada on November 30, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I think some states would debate whether or not to stay in the union.

Oil Can on November 30, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Among the debate topics: What to do about the inevitable stream of refugees from the states that stayed.

CurtZHP on November 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM

The second Great Depression will be at hand.

michaelo on November 30, 2011 at 12:12 PM

And the voters will have themselves to blame. And we will be praying for 4 years of good health for SCOTUS Justice Kennedy, otherwise it’s game over for America as we know her. Oh, and for those of you that say “I will sit out and not vote if it is not (insert your prefered candidate here)” – you should think about that.

VegasRick on November 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM

If the GOP controls the house and senate for his 4 years (which I think is likely), won’t be the end of the world.

angryed on November 30, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Grab your shovel. We have a field of idiots being elected by a field of idiots. Even if Barry packs his bags you think any on the debate platform is going to be able to tackle the trash pile Barry leaves? Whoever wants the next slot better come with a whole box of rocks to toss back at the mobs.

Limerick on November 30, 2011 at 12:18 PM

If Romney & Newt are really the best the GOP can put up, Obama deserves to win. The Dems spotted us a 3 TD lead. And in response we put our 4th string QB in the game. You can’t blame the Democrats for intercepting every 2nd pass thrown from him.

angryed on November 30, 2011 at 12:20 PM

For everyone’s sake, I pray the Tree of Liberty doesn’t dry out any further.

OhioCoastie on November 30, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Oh, and for those of you that say “I will sit out and not vote if it is not (insert your prefered candidate here)” – you should think about that.

VegasRick on November 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Yep. Tantrums aren’t useful in problem solving.

a capella on November 30, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Wonder if we will have some major crisis here in the US that would make it to dangerous to have an election in 2012? I know, conspiracy theory on my part, but I wouldn’t put anything past bho and team? I don’t think the voters would let this happen though.
L

letget on November 30, 2011 at 12:20 PM

If the Pubbies don’t make a clean sweep of it; the whole world will be in deep doo-doo. Maybe the Pubbies can be swept away and a new 3rd party of saner people can arise but would there be time? I hear Canada’s getting their act together and Vancouver seems to be a nice place . .. hmmm.

Bob in VA on November 30, 2011 at 12:21 PM

the Republicans will get to prove whether or not their theories can actually improve things before we begin the whole shooting match all over again a year later.

I eagerly await this. When macro factors prevent a robust recovery, watching the GOP spin the lack of jobs and economic growth will be awful fun.

ernesto on November 30, 2011 at 12:21 PM

What if, what if, what if.

In the words of Edna Mode, “Fight! Win!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLDWhn8HZfY&feature=related

rrpjr on November 30, 2011 at 12:21 PM

“What would happen if Obama wins the election next November?”

If Obama wins it may be last time any of us get to vote in a Presidential election.

tommyboy on November 30, 2011 at 12:22 PM

I’m tiring of this kind of speculation that’s based on the assumption that this ridiculous politicking can continue indefinitely. 5 more years of this along with what’s going on in Europe and we’re headed for a major collapse. The aftermath will be more like Mad Max than the fallout from Bob Dole’s defeat in the 1990′s.

forest on November 30, 2011 at 12:22 PM

If The Whine gets reelected, second look at the zombie apocalypse.

rbj on November 30, 2011 at 12:22 PM

The premise of the article is all wrong…who cares who he loses to…

The real question is what happens to us???…

PatriotRider on November 30, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Mitt can’t win. He can’t stand us peasants or endure our questions, so it’s a dumb presumption.

As for anyone else getting the nomination, if they can’t win against Obama’s poor numbers, then it’s certainly not our fault.

beatcanvas on November 30, 2011 at 12:23 PM

I’m thinking something more on the order of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azAToyalZDE&feature=related

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on November 30, 2011 at 12:23 PM

However, as we learned in 2010 and as we’re learning to some extent during the early month of the 2012 election cycle, the movement has also caused the party to go off on bizarre tangents at times and to take insane stands like appearing to be willing to take the nation to the brink of financial chaos back in August.

This is a false statement. This nation was never on the brink of financial chaos, since Bernanke and the Federal Reserve has had our backs all the time, to the tune of 7.7 trillion dollars.

Rovin on November 30, 2011 at 12:24 PM

The way the GOP primary is going, the Presidential election will go uncontested, so we better prepare for a second Obama term.

neuquenguy on November 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM

I can see the “end of the world” people are out in droves again. The same apocalypse was predicted if Kennedy won in 1960, if LBJ won in 1964, Nixon won in 1972, if Reagan won in 1980, if Clinton won in 1996, if Bush won in 2004…

Obama is a terrible President who richly deserves to lose in a landslide in 2012, but the apocalyptic critics have gone psychotic

AngusMc on November 30, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Oh, and for those of you that say “I will sit out and not vote if it is not (insert your prefered candidate here)” – you should think about that.

VegasRick on November 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM

I’m not inclined to accept the blame if the choice before us ends up being two big-government politicians (e.g., Romney and Obama), neither of whom appears at all likely to do a damn thing to help us out of the mess we’re in.

Concentrating on the House and the Senate this year is starting to look like a much better strategy than concentrating on the Presidency, particularly if we know in our hearts that the GOP presidential nominee is most likely thoroughly unappetizing to the public at large, bad economy or no bad economy.

Aitch748 on November 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM

When macro factors prevent a robust recovery, watching the GOP spin the lack of jobs and economic growth will be awful fun.

ernesto on November 30, 2011 at 12:21 PM

The federal government’s impact is approaching 50% of the economy. There isn’t a bigger macro factor to be found.

Vashta.Nerada on November 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM

It’s not going to come down to Obama unless people are so loyal to the “R” that they won’t consider a 3rd party even when the 3rd party will probably be more popular that their own candidate. Even if the R candidate is in second or third place and the 3rd party is in a close 1st or second, if people still insist on voting R when they actually prefer the 3rd party….then we could end up with Obama.

But if Republican’s are willing to change course then we can defeat Obama easily; just not with an GOP establishment candidate. Nobody like either party, and especially if there is another dip in the economy, people will be demanding change.

Don’t be surprised if the left has a third party too. In fact, let’s all just agree not to vote for another D or R and both sides should use this opportunity to start new parties without all of the baggage.

FloatingRock on November 30, 2011 at 12:29 PM

I eagerly await this. When macro factors prevent a robust recovery, watching the GOP spin the lack of jobs and economic growth will be awful fun.

ernesto on November 30, 2011 at 12:21 PM

I eagerly await it too, Ernie. But, as we found out with Bush, a 5.3% unemployment rate is akin to starving people in the streets and killing granny to you and your lib friends.

Yet, you’re silent when it’s 9% with a lib Senate and a communist in the White House. Come November 7th, 2012 though, the “where are the jobs” chorus from you will begin again when there’s a Republican in the White House.

BacaDog on November 30, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Obama is a terrible President who richly deserves to lose in a landslide in 2012, but the apocalyptic critics have gone psychotic

AngusMc on November 30, 2011 at 12:27 PM

If Obama wins and the dems control both houses of congress for another 2 years, it is pretty much over. No, it won’t be Mad Max. But the US will be Greece only without the cool beaches. That’s a given.

angryed on November 30, 2011 at 12:30 PM

John @ Power Line:

In our modern history, no one with an approval rating as low as Obama’s at this point in this term has ever been re-elected. Lyndon Johnson was just a point higher, and he gracefully bowed out. Everyone else was considerably higher. So Obama is in uncharted territory, but it is fair to say that there is no modern precedent for a president as unpopular as Obama being elected to a second term.

However, it should be noted that there is also no modern precedent for a mainstream media being as totally invested in a President’s “success” as the 2008-2011 Democrat Media is with O’bama.

They sold their souls and their credibility to get him elected in 2008, and will do anything and everything to keep him in office.

We ain’t seen nothing yet. If our country survives, 50 years from now university courses will be taught about the total dissolution of the once-objective mainstream media into nothing more than a propaganda organ for the Democrat Party.

Del Dolemonte on November 30, 2011 at 12:30 PM

I will vote for the Republican but my read of Gov. Romney is that he will bend over backwards to make nice with the Democrats and get things done. Even if those things are counterproductive. And he will do that even if the Republican have the majority in Congress.

Cindy Munford on November 30, 2011 at 12:30 PM

The way the GOP primary is going, the Presidential election will go uncontested, so we better prepare for a second Obama term.

neuquenguy on November 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Yes, all of the R’s should drop out now, no way any of them could possibly beat ozero. Go away child, I have a pair of dirty gym socks that could beat obambi.

VegasRick on November 30, 2011 at 12:30 PM

The danger this poses for the GOP, of course, is that a re-elected President Obama is likely to have at least some public opinion boost behind him in 2013, as well as the ability to claim a mandate…

The ability ‘to claim a mandate’ assumes that Barry wins BIG. Just squeaking by is not a “mandate”……..no matter who tries to spin it as such.

GarandFan on November 30, 2011 at 12:31 PM

I eagerly await this. When macro factors prevent a robust recovery, watching the GOP spin the lack of jobs and economic growth will be awful fun.

ernesto on November 30, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Last time we had one of those evil Reps in the WH, GDP grew on average 3%, unemployment averaged 5%. and the deficit was never above $500B.

Compare that with Obama – 9% unemployment, $1.5T debt and GDP growth 1-2%.

I can’t wait to get back to the bad old days myself.

angryed on November 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM

I love threads like this on HA. Apocalyptic fearmongering, paranoia, and demagogic nonsense at its finest!

“States leaving the union!”

“Major crisis preventing an election in 2012!”

“National bankruptcy and 2nd Great Depression!”

LOL!

All this thread needs is a few mentions of the oncoming race war, FEMA camps, Chinese/UN takeover, and forced abortions.

cornfedbubba on November 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM

I think some states would debate whether or not to stay in the union.

Oil Can on November 30, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Some make joke about this, but I don’t think it would be a stretch at all for that to happen.

If Obama wins it may be will be last time any of us get to vote in a Presidential election.

tommyboy on November 30, 2011 at 12:22 PM

FIFY. Sorry.

I think if he wins next November, by Christmas next year, there will be some referdums at least for secession in some states. I can think of at least 4-5 states that go for immediately: TX, AK, WA, MT, HI (yes, HI, the “birthplace” of obama)

ConservativePartyNow on November 30, 2011 at 12:33 PM

VegasRick on November 30, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Don’t take sarcasm very well, do you?
Even so, we underestimate Obama and overestimate the electorate at our own peril.

neuquenguy on November 30, 2011 at 12:33 PM

cornfedbubba on November 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Drinking your lunch isn’t good for you.

Del Dolemonte on November 30, 2011 at 12:33 PM

If Obama wins we’ll have a combination of Ryan/Rubio/Christie in 2016 going against Cuomo with unemployment around 10% and the country on the verge of collapse from being 20 trillion in debt.

We’ll also have replaced at least two more judges.

The latter is why whoever wins the nomination needs to win the presidency. Who would you rather replace Ginsburg, Scalia, or Kennedy? Newt, Romney, or Obama?

cpaulus on November 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM

cornfedbubba on November 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Kind of like what DailyKos was like circa 2003/2004. Except everything you guys predicted about Bush, Obama has actually done. Odd eh?

angryed on November 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM

There are quite a few people that want the Republican party to be the same as the neutered ‘Conservative’ parties in Europe. This party is supposed to agree in principle with most of what the left wants but doesn’t think the left is responsible enough to pay for it. Maybe instead of a 20% increase in welfare they scream that they can not afford it and hold out for 10% and in reality get 15%. That is what Mataconis and the rest of the ‘moderates’ want. A more ‘fiscally responsible’ Democratic party.

The two party system can not work that way. Both parties have to stand for different things or larger and larger blocs of voters feel disfranchised. That is where the Tea Party came from. The Dems screamed for more welfare cash and higher taxes on just a small fraction of the population (the part whose votes they are not purchasing). The Repubs claimed they were against both. What we got was a cut in the rate of spending increases and a lot more borrowing. Someday this will stop if only because people will stop lending to us. ‘We will run out of other peoples’ money’ to quote a particularly wise lady. The Tea Party arose to try to fix it now instead of during a later crash.

We will either fix it now or later when people are equating us with Greece/Ireland ect…

Dawnsblood on November 30, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Del Dolemonte on November 30, 2011 at 12:30 PM

And why is this the case? What is it about this man that engenders this kind of behavior? He has failed on every level, even though he fought the war on terror from W’s blueprint, all of that will be for nothing based on his withdraw plans. I don’t understand this at all.

Cindy Munford on November 30, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Ooh, that’s a new one:macro factors!!

That must be v2.0 of “Bush’s fault”

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on November 30, 2011 at 12:36 PM

A loss in 2012 that gets pinned on the movement would likely re-energize the “establishment” and more traditional conservatives in the party and cause a backlash against some of the more radical elements of the Tea Party. In the long run, this would probably be good for the GOP.

Yeah, the radical elements. I’m sick of the “good government compromisers” where the GOPers like Dole et al. were the tax collectors for the welfare state. They always fell for that “balanced budget” carrot by compromising on tax hikes with the promise of spending restraint which never came.
If Mitt is the nominee that loses, I believe a conservative third party will emerge. The “establishment” GOP is the Progressive Democrat Party with the brakes on.

cartooner on November 30, 2011 at 12:37 PM

For a website calling itself “Outside the Beltway,” this article sure seems inside the Beltway, in all the most irritating ways.

the movement has also caused the party to go off on bizarre tangents…

Oh, that Tea Party and its “bizarre tangents” like stopping the insane spending and refraining from self-destructing the very foundation of the country.

Kensington on November 30, 2011 at 12:37 PM

I just want our long national nightmare to end.

skeneogden on November 30, 2011 at 12:37 PM

The latter is why whoever wins the nomination needs to win the presidency. Who would you rather replace Ginsburg, Scalia, or Kennedy? Newt, Romney, or Obama?

cpaulus on November 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Spot on.

We can turn over Congress and the White House every 2 to 4 years. SCOTUS is for life.

BacaDog on November 30, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Don’t take sarcasm very well, do you?
Even so, we underestimate Obama and overestimate the electorate at our own peril.

neuquenguy on November 30, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Sorry. I missed it. I just snap when I see a real post about “sitting out” or “no way any of our folks have a chance” stuff.

VegasRick on November 30, 2011 at 12:37 PM

cornfedbubba on November 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM

There were plenty of Romans who felt the same way. “LOL! There will always be Rome. We’re too big to fail1″

forest on November 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM

We can turn over Congress and the White House every 2 to 4 years. SCOTUS is for life.

BacaDog on November 30, 2011 at 12:37 PM

You assume Romney’s picks would be better than Obama’s. I’m not so sure about that.

angryed on November 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM

If he does pull it off, I can think of at least 6 states/territories that will go for independence, including AK, TX, WA, MT, HI(yes, even obama’s “birthplace”), and PR. Possibly by Thanksgiving next year.

Not only that, but 2012 will mark the last presidential election of the union, because we will have a full fledged dictatorship in power.

ConservativePartyNow on November 30, 2011 at 12:40 PM

I will vote for the Republican but my read of Gov. Romney is that he will bend over backwards to make nice with the Democrats and get things done. Even if those things are counterproductive. And he will do that even if the Republican have the majority in Congress.

Cindy Munford on November 30, 2011 at 12:30 PM

And the smiles he will flash at all the signing ceremonies will be just dazzling, too.

And afterwards, the Democrats will hold endless press conferences where they will denounce President Romney as a “right wing extremist” to their fawning stenographers in the press.

Kensington on November 30, 2011 at 12:40 PM

I’m not inclined to accept the blame if the choice before us ends up being two big-government politicians (e.g., Romney and Obama), neither of whom appears at all likely to do a damn thing to help us out of the mess we’re in.

Concentrating on the House and the Senate this year is starting to look like a much better strategy than concentrating on the Presidency, particularly if we know in our hearts that the GOP presidential nominee is most likely thoroughly unappetizing to the public at large, bad economy or no bad economy.

Aitch748 on November 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Yep. I’ve been saying this along, thinking it since the Republican race started. There are no exciting candidates and Gingrich seems to be the de-facto nominee. I think the election will be pretty close, especially if Newt picks a good VP nominee, but I don’t believe he’ll win, unless the economy crashes. People are just too “pop-culturized” and will see Newt as old news and see Obama as the incumbent who can “improve” the economy. I think he’ll make the same argument Reagan did in ’84 and say that the economy will continue to improve under him. So, yeah, I also think it would be wise to focus on taking the Senate and winning even more seats in the House. The presidency is a lost cause.

NathanG on November 30, 2011 at 12:40 PM

You assume Romney’s picks would be better than Obama’s. I’m not so sure about that.

angryed on November 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Could he do any worse? kagan? The wise latina? obambi might choose jay-z next.

VegasRick on November 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM

You assume Romney’s picks would be better than Obama’s. I’m not so sure about that.

angryed on November 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM

It’s all I got, angryed.

I am 100% positive I won’t like Obama’s picks.

Even if I am only 25% sure I will like Romney’s, I gotta go with the odds.

BacaDog on November 30, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Republicans only need to win 14 out of 33 Senate races in 2012 to take back the Senate, and that’s if Obama wins reelection.

So a presidential candidate’s coattails aren’t that important.

Mister Mets on November 30, 2011 at 12:43 PM

as defeatist as it may seem, I expect the GOP elitists to pull defeat out of victory. They are incapable of anything else. Both Boehner and McConnell need to evaporate.

ultracon on November 30, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Kensington on November 30, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Yep!

Cindy Munford on November 30, 2011 at 12:43 PM

“The “no compromise” position that the Tea Party represents may be good for internal party consumption and it may make the true believers happy, but it’s not good government and it’s probably not a good long term political strategy.”

We are $15+ Trillion in debt and the Democrats never compromise…

… Our Grand children’s children’s money has already been spent by Obowma which he pissed away on the unions and crony capitalism.

The Democrats have not passed a budget in over 930+ days…

… Obowma is ruling by decree with Executive Orders granting amnesty and destroying our currency.

We can not harvest our own energy and long term unemployment has become a normal way of life for over 14 million Americans…

If Obowma is re-elected, the number of unelected Czars will probably triple, he will appoint maybe two or three SCOTUS judges that share his Marxist/Socialist ideology, Van Jones will have keys to the country, and this country will be turned into Rev. Wright’s church…

What part of “No Compromise” do you not understand…?

Seven Percent Solution on November 30, 2011 at 12:44 PM

“…NO ONE will lend us enough to cover our YEAR-TO-YEAR operational shortfall…”

No one except The Fed, that is – who is the largest holder of U. S. Sovereign Debt in the World, even exceeding China.

Another Drew on November 30, 2011 at 12:45 PM

So what would happen if Obama won?

It very much depends on whether the President is successful in running to the right of our candidate.

If he is then the Republican elite might as well put one knee in their radio flyer and scoot home.

And BTW if the President wins, everyone (literally) you might work for will go into hiding, with their gold bars.

If you want a job in 2013 you better talk to your neighbors and make sure they understand the stakes.

Speakup on November 30, 2011 at 12:48 PM

The Tea Party has to be careful not to confuse “political outsider” with “political inexperience”. While a candidate with no political experience might win a House race by gaining the backing of 100,000 or so voters fed-up with the status quo, rookie mistakes can be fatal in a statewide race, and even worse when seeking the Presidency.

The Tea Party backed quite a few non-politicians for Senate in 2010. While businessman Ron Johnson won in WI, Carly Fiorina lost in CA, Linda McMahon lost in CT, Ken Buck lost in CO, Sharron Angle lost in NV, and Christine O’Donnell lost in DE.

The Tea Party also backed some candidates WITH political experience, including Marco Rubio (Speaker of the state House), Rand Paul (son of a House member), Pat Toomey (former House member), and Kelly Ayotte (state treasurer), all of whom WON election to the Senate.

In the Presidential race, the only candidate who has never held elective office is Herman Cain, and he recently “crashed and burned”, not only due to accusations about his personal behavior, but also due to ignorance of foreign policy and serious questions about his 9-9-9 plan.

Romney, Perry, and Huntsman are all Governors or former Governors; Santorum is a former Senator, and Gingrich, Bachmann, and Paul are all House members or former House members. It’s actually ironic that Romney is considered by some to be the “political establishment”, because he has less experience in elective office than any of the others except Cain, while Gingrich, Santorum and Perry have the most experience. Tea Partiers need to remember that the best campaigners are those who have already won several elections.

Steve Z on November 30, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Who would you rather replace Ginsburg, Scalia, or Kennedy? Newt, Romney, or Obama?

cpaulus on November 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Yes, I can hardly wait for the second coming of David Souter.

cartooner on November 30, 2011 at 12:51 PM

I love threads like this on HA. Apocalyptic fearmongering, paranoia, and demagogic nonsense at its finest!

“States leaving the union!”

“Major crisis preventing an election in 2012!”

“National bankruptcy and 2nd Great Depression!”

LOL!

All this thread needs is a few mentions of the oncoming race war, FEMA camps, Chinese/UN takeover, and forced abortions.

cornfedbubba on November 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Yeah, silly over-reactors.
Personally, I never over-react.
I plan to calmly and cooly change my name to Ragnar Danneskjöld and hit the high seas.

Unless Texas splits off, then I’ll be going there.

justltl on November 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Isn’t the horrendous fallout for the entire country just a WEE bit more important than the self-centered question of “how does the GOP react” ?

A second term for Obama would be DEVASTATING for this country, and I don’t particularly care HOW the GOP reacts to it. Their number one priority following an Obama victory would be to find every possible avenue to block Obama from fully implementing his Death Star transformation agenda. Frankly, this priority is so much higher than anything else, as to make anything else irrelevant.

deadrody on November 30, 2011 at 12:53 PM

This was the pertinent and interesting part.

However, as we learned in 2010 and as we’re learning to some extent during the early month of the 2012 election cycle, the movement has also caused the party to go off on bizarre tangents at times and to take insane stands like appearing to be willing to take the nation to the brink of financial chaos back in August. The “no compromise” position that the Tea Party represents may be good for internal party consumption and it may make the true believers happy, but it’s not good government and it’s probably not a good long term political strategy.

Actually, the fact that candidates were willing to call out the insane stands of Barack Obama and the Obama Party is the reason for the 2010 election results.

Mataconis and his ilk have still not gotten over the lessons of 2008: when offered the choice between Obama Party and Obama Party Lite, voters choose the Obama Party. They are locked in this perpetual delusion because their preferred type of candidate is the one that the Republicans ran in 2008 – a squishy moderate who hated conservatives, only took stands against and criticized other Republicans, and did a fine job of reinforcing their inherent belief that government is the solution for every problem.

northdallasthirty on November 30, 2011 at 12:53 PM

the [Tea Party] movement has also caused the party to go off on bizarre tangents at times and to take insane stands like appearing to be willing to take the nation to the brink of financial chaos back in August.

Stopped reading there.

This of course refers to the debt ceiling increase, meaning that not giving another credit card to the daughter with ten cards maxed out already is not only bizarre but also insane.

Akzed on November 30, 2011 at 12:53 PM

The great die-off of humanity would begin.

Obama has the EPA completely shut off new natural gas, coal, and crude exploitation. Nitrate fertilizer pricing goes through the roof
Oil, the life blood of a modern society hits $200 a bbl and the US loses 50+ GW of electricity generation.

Suddenly “developed” nations are spending half their GDP on food.
Non-developed nations have famines that make the Soviet’s action in the Ukraine look like a picnic.

Let me know if you need more doom and gloom. I got truck loads of it.

Nathan_OH on November 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM

What part of “No Compromise” do you not understand…?

Seven Percent Solution on November 30, 2011 at 12:44 PM

One has to remember that Mataconis and his ilk, despite their blog name, are wholly and completely dependent on the Beltway crowd to keep their jobs.

There is no initiative that they will not support in the name of increasing Washington’s power over the rest of the country. None. And they do not care how much wealth is confiscated from everyone else, because they are sitting atop the pipeline and intend to tap their own little buckets for consulting money.

northdallasthirty on November 30, 2011 at 12:56 PM

“the movement has also caused the party to go off on bizarre tangents at times and to take insane stands like appearing to be willing to take the nation to the brink of financial chaos back in August”

That quote tells me to question everything he says. The Democrats sandbagged the whole process but somehow the Teaparty was taking insane stands? There is nothing insane about getting an out of control Washington under control.

vegasguy on November 30, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Aitch748 on November 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM
NathanG on November 30, 2011 at 12:40 PM

The thing is, people tend to vote a ticket, not for individuals. That’s why you hear people talking about ‘coat-tails.’ To win the House and Senate, we’re going to have to win the White House.

Not many voters will vote for Obama, and then Republican/Conservative congressmen.

Washington Nearsider on November 30, 2011 at 12:57 PM

You can’t compromise with Marxists. We have to stop it dead in it’s tracks. This whole plea for compromise is media driven hysteria. Does anyone think that people go to the polls with a passion to vote for the best compromisers? Hell no they want to vote for ideas, and the democrats ideas are killing the country.

one more thing; Obama is toast, he will not win. Get ready for president Gingrich.

exceller on November 30, 2011 at 12:58 PM

I love threads like this on HA. Apocalyptic fearmongering, paranoia, and demagogic nonsense at its finest!

“States leaving the union!”

“Major crisis preventing an election in 2012!”

“National bankruptcy and 2nd Great Depression!”

LOL!

All this thread needs is a few mentions of the oncoming race war, FEMA camps, Chinese/UN takeover, and forced abortions.

cornfedbubba on November 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM

I don’t see how a piece on how the GOP would react to a loss as being on a par with one about pending national bankruptcy, the union dissolving etc. In fact, please send links to those HA threads you mentioned, because I don’t recall seeing here. Maybe you’re thinking of Infowars where I’m sure you spend lotsa time.

Thanks.

Akzed on November 30, 2011 at 12:58 PM

…like appearing to be willing to take the nation to the brink of financial chaos back in August.

Who was arguing that the nation was at the brink of financial chaos, why did they argue that, and what did they propose to fix the problem? Setting aside incumbency concerns, what was the best outcome for the country? And, since the GOP essentially surrendered, will we discover that “financial chaos” was averted, delayed, or made worse? And who will be assigned the blame for those results? Or the credit? If the GOP does lose, it’ll largely be because of sloppy thinking and unargued premises like those in that statement.

Does the secret to GOP success lie in never “appearing to be willing” to make any decision that might be argued to conceivably have harmful effects at some point in the future? If so, I guess our representatives should just shut up and be grateful the Democrats let them use the cafeteria.

GalosGann on November 30, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Snowe/Collins/Murkowski/McCain/Cornyn……Even if the Republicans won the Senate, by the time the Leadership negotiated with this crew (plus numerous other RINO’s) any forthcoming legislation would also be palatable to the Democrats. No matter which party is in control, the “redistribution gravy train” will roll on.

RADIOONE on November 30, 2011 at 12:59 PM

cornfedbubba on November 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM

So tell me, f**kwit, where’s the war in Iran, theocratic imperative, dissident camps, martial law, and third Bush term that you and yours couldn’t stop masturbating about 5 years ago?

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2011 at 1:01 PM

It’s actually ironic that Romney is considered by some to be the “political establishment”, because he has less experience in elective office than any of the others except Cain,…

Steve Z on November 30, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Romney has as much experience as anyone when it comes to running for office but the least when it comes to winning.

cartooner on November 30, 2011 at 1:01 PM

The best thing that could happen to Obama’s reelection campaign is for the Supreme Court to rule on Obamacare, and find it Un-Constitutional.

It removes the biggest club out of the Republican’s war chest. I don’t know how Karl Rove plans for these contingencies, but I would be opening another flank in respect to Obama’s reelection campaign.

The Democrats are not just going to roll over and play dead. Whoever the Republican’s nominee turns out to be, he or she will be Palinized in the MSM. An Un Godly reign of relentless hyper personal partisan attacks and smears for whoever steps into the arena. I won’t be surprised to learn for instance if it’s Newt, that Newt Gingrich likes to eat newborn babies for snacks/

Dr Evil on November 30, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Stopped reading there.

This of course refers to the debt ceiling increase, meaning that not giving another credit card to the daughter with ten cards maxed out already is not only bizarre but also insane.

Akzed on November 30, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Yep, it’s not the massive and quickly growing debt that is taking us to the brink of financial chaos. It’s making any effort to stop it that would cause the problem.

Ask a heroin junkie, or a journalist, they know how it works.

forest on November 30, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Unfortunately I don’t think it’s a question of if Obama wins but when he wins. The GOP is going to nominate either Romney who is an empty suit or Gingrinch who has far too many issues from his past to get elected. Neither of those guys is going to beat Obama unless something big happens between now and the elections.

I’m not saying this pleases me. It’s just the way it’s going to play out IMO.

Benaiah on November 30, 2011 at 1:03 PM

If he wins, he should promptly be impeached by the House. I’m really not sure what they’re waiting on for this.

SouthernGent on November 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Yes.

Mary in LA on November 30, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Regardless of who gets elected, I just don’t see any thing that will stop the collapse of global society.

esnap on November 30, 2011 at 1:06 PM

I sincerely wish people would remember compromise represents BOTH sides giving a little. The Republicans did by allowing additional tax revenue. The democrats did not, as they wanted not revenue but tax increases. (You know, like 0 wanted tax increases even if it did not produce more revenue, but just to be ‘fair’). The democrats have not provided any evidence of compromising as yet.

Oleta on November 30, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Barakolypse

Hard Right on November 30, 2011 at 1:07 PM

If the GOP wins, prepare for howls of racism from the left.
Equally, prepare for massive voter fraud by the left.

Kini on November 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM

If the GOP doesn’t win the presidency and both houses of congress in 2012, the question of what happens within the GOP will be a footnote to be discussed by historians of other, surviving nations.

Vashta.Nerada on November 30, 2011 at 12:15 PM

My advice? Lighten up. We have a good chance of taking the presidency and keeping the House. Taking the Senate, not so much. A clean sweep of all three is a rare and beautiful thing for the party that pulls it off. The Democrats had waited since Truman to pull it off and once they did, did all they could to fulfill every item on the liberal wishlist. It would be nice to make them eat that wishlist, with no water to wash it down.

That said, if Obama is reelected and the Senate remains in Democratic control, we’re looking at four more years of very hard times, certainly, but not the world-ending apocolypse you seem to imply.

troyriser_gopftw on November 30, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Oh, and for those of you that say “I will sit out and not vote if it is not (insert your prefered candidate here)” – you should think about that.

VegasRick on November 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Maybe moderates should start helping select candidates that appeal to the conservative base, than bully the base into picking yet another candidate that acts against conservative ideals.

The bullying approach won’t work this time… at least not with me.

dominigan on November 30, 2011 at 1:21 PM

We will crash…. we will stop Obama in the house and senate and he will be impeached and removed, along with some judges.

Hard hard HARD times will be ahead, and if the above does NOT happen, it will be WORSE!

golfmann on November 30, 2011 at 1:22 PM

I think some states would debate whether or not to stay in the union.

Oil Can on November 30, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Among the debate topics: What to do about the inevitable stream of refugees from the states that stayed.

CurtZHP on November 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM

I am surprise y’all didn’t get the ban hammer for this. I got called out for the “s” word. Perhaps the context I used it was way more harsh than what you put forth.

Having written that, I am in a unique situation. US Territories? In PR they disliked O and gave it to Hillary at the primaries; his visit was a total disrespect from the Governor down to the people, and his lack of (name any noun/verb of choice here) of taking care of business has shown his real “love” for Latinos-Latinos that are American citizens, not illegals.

If they could vote-too bad Puerto Rico is NOT a state-you’d get a 80% GOP votes. Too bad stars and $$ are not aligned in either place to make this true.

ProudPalinFan on November 30, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2