"Winning Hurts the Franchise"

[bartshan-83]

With people so disenchanted with government, it seems that elections are often won and lost based on the perceived failure of the predecessor. My impression is that the majority of Americans were far from enamored with either major party candidate this year, a theme similar to the last few presidential elections as well (I can't speak for anything earlier as I was too young). Whichever party is in charge seems to fck it up spurring a backlash for the following election.

 

I believe popular opinion is that W will likely go down as a colossal failure as a president and its possible that the only people more disappointed in him than liberals, are conservatives. His term marked a betrayal of conservative values and his extremist pandering alienated countless voters. But all this is known...

 

My question is mainly directed to the conservative folks (but is obviously open to anyone)...if you could go back to that fateful night of hanging chads and injunctions, would you change the outcome of that election? Do you believe that the last 8 years have done more damage to the Republican party than a victory was worth?

 

Along those lines, do you believe that a Democratic victory in either 2000 or 2004 would have actually had a similar effect for the Democratic party and perhaps John McCain (or whoever) would be the one reaping the benefit of the "need for a change" in this election? Would that have been worth 4/8 years of Gore/Kerry?

 

Just something I thought was an interesting topic of discussion.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

With people so disenchanted with government, it seems that elections are often won and lost based on the perceived failure of the predecessor. My impression is that the majority of Americans were far from enamored with either major party candidate this year, a theme similar to the last few presidential elections as well (I can't speak for anything earlier as I was too young). Whichever party is in charge seems to fck it up spurring a backlash for the following election.

 

I believe popular opinion is that W will likely go down as a colossal failure as a president and its possible that the only people more disappointed in him than liberals, are conservatives. His term marked a betrayal of conservative values and his extremist pandering alienated countless voters. But all this is known...

 

My question is mainly directed to the conservative folks (but is obviously open to anyone)...if you could go back to that fateful night of hanging chads and injunctions, would you change the outcome of that election? Do you believe that the last 8 years have done more damage to the Republican party than a victory was worth?

 

Along those lines, do you believe that a Democratic victory in either 2000 or 2004 would have actually had a similar effect for the Democratic party and perhaps John McCain (or whoever) would be the one reaping the benefit of the "need for a change" in this election? Would that have been worth 4/8 years of Gore/Kerry?

 

Just something I thought was an interesting topic of discussion.

 

Nothing would have been worth 8 years of Gore.

[Robert Paulson]

With people so disenchanted with government, it seems that elections are often won and lost based on the perceived failure of the predecessor. My impression is that the majority of Americans were far from enamored with either major party candidate this year, a theme similar to the last few presidential elections as well (I can't speak for anything earlier as I was too young). Whichever party is in charge seems to fck it up spurring a backlash for the following election.

 

I believe popular opinion is that W will likely go down as a colossal failure as a president and its possible that the only people more disappointed in him than liberals, are conservatives. His term marked a betrayal of conservative values and his extremist pandering alienated countless voters. But all this is known...

 

My question is mainly directed to the conservative folks (but is obviously open to anyone)...if you could go back to that fateful night of hanging chads and injunctions, would you change the outcome of that election? Do you believe that the last 8 years have done more damage to the Republican party than a victory was worth?

 

Along those lines, do you believe that a Democratic victory in either 2000 or 2004 would have actually had a similar effect for the Democratic party and perhaps John McCain (or whoever) would be the one reaping the benefit of the "need for a change" in this election? Would that have been worth 4/8 years of Gore/Kerry?

 

Just something I thought was an interesting topic of discussion.

 

gore would not have gotten us into IRAQ without that the last 8 tears would have been totally different and impossible to know where we would be right now except probabaly not in the clusterfluck we are now

[justnzane]

well here is a scenario that i think would have probably played itself out better:

McCain winning the Republican primary in 2000.

[drnykterstein]

Nothing would have been worth 8 years of Gore.

 

I just wish McCain could have beaten W in 2000.

[/dev/null]

Flashback to 2002 and to some extent 2004

 

The Republican's looked like they would be the majority party for the foreseeable future and the Democrats couldn't find their way out of a paper bag. Then the Republicans got so full of themselves and screwed the pooch

 

Give Obama and Pelosi 2-6 years and they'll do the same, which will swing the pendulum back to the Republicans for a couple years who will in turn screw up swinging the pendulum back to the Democrats...

 

Rinse and repeat

[VOR]

Nothing would have been worth 8 years of Gore.

Not going into Iraq would have been worth 8 years of Gore.

[bartshan-83]

Nothing would have been worth 8 years of Gore.

Perhaps. But going with that thought, maybe 4 years is all he would have gotten.

[SDS]

I could write for hours on this particular subject, but I doubt I could capture my thoughts eloquently and sufficiently enough to truly reflect my viewpoint. Given that - I'll just throw out some scattered thoughts.

 

1. The problem was W should have never have been nominated in 2000. It was widely regarded that if a Bush boy was going to run for office, Jeb Bush was the one that was presidential material. When W disclosed to the family that he wanted to run, Jeb stepped aside out of respect for him. Of course, the way the party nominates its candidates is backasswards. The whole "next in line" philosophy pisses me off.

 

2. It is impossible to know what Gore would have done during 9/11. Obama's victory will be painted in many ways, but I think once you dive into the numbers - you will see this to be an anger vote. This vote was against W and not for Obama's policy positions. The public could be just as angry with the way Gore handled the situation as the way W handled it. Any rationale analysis of this election cycle, given the war, given the economy, given an absurdly unpopular president - and John McCain was actually winning this race about 6 weeks ago is utterly astounding. If the credit crisis started next week, you may be looking at an entirely different outcome. I think it speaks to the weakness of a victory that on paper is very impressive. This ocean is wide, but an inch deep right now.

 

To answer your question - I'm not sure it was worth it, but it was inevitable. The Republican Party has lost it's way and I look forward to it's re-emergence as a stronger party based upon it's governing principles. The electorate is with them on the issues. The internals will bear this out. America just elected an undefined candidate that ran on Reaganesque rhetoric and a tax cut. Obama out Republicaned the so-called Republican.

 

W ushered in the house cleaning sooner than normal, but that is what happens to all politicians - they get corrupted. It was only 4 years ago when we talked about the permanent Republican majority. The country has not changed that much in 4 years.

 

I look forward to saying goodbye to the republican leadership just as I looked forward to saying goodbye to them back in 1994. The party will get back to basics and continue to win the debates our country engages in.

[bartshan-83]

I could write for hours on this particular subject, but I doubt I could capture my thoughts eloquently and sufficiently enough to truly reflect my viewpoint. Given that - I'll just throw out some scattered thoughts.

 

1. The problem was W should have never have been nominated in 2000. It was widely regarded that if a Bush boy was going to run for office, Jeb Bush was the one that was presidential material. When W disclosed to the family that he wanted to run, Jeb stepped aside out of respect for him. Of course, the way the party nominates its candidates is backasswards. The whole "next in line" philosophy pisses me off.

 

2. It is impossible to know what Gore would have done during 9/11. Obama's victory will be painted in many ways, but I think once you dive into the numbers - you will see this to be an anger vote. This vote was against W and not for Obama's policy positions. The public could be just as angry with the way Gore handled the situation as the way W handled it. Any rationale analysis of this election cycle, given the war, given the economy, given an absurdly unpopular president - and John McCain was actually winning this race about 6 weeks ago is utterly astounding. If the credit crisis started next week, you may be looking at an entirely different outcome. I think it speaks to the weakness of a victory that on paper is very impressive. This ocean is wide, but an inch deep right now.

 

To answer your question - I'm not sure it was worth it, but it was inevitable. The Republican Party has lost it's way and I look forward to it's re-emergence as a stronger party based upon it's governing principles. The electorate is with them on the issues. The internals will bear this out. America just elected an undefined candidate that ran on Reaganesque rhetoric and a tax cut. Obama out Republicaned the so-called Republican.

 

W ushered in the house cleaning sooner than normal, but that is what happens to all politicians - they get corrupted. It was only 4 years ago when we talked about the permanent Republican majority. The country has not changed that much in 4 years.

 

I look forward to saying goodbye to the republican leadership just as I looked forward to saying goodbye to them back in 1994. The party will get back to basics and continue to win the debates our country engages in.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

 

You bring up an interesting thought about Jeb...I was still in high school and not very in-tune with politics during the lead-up to the 2000 election, but I think I remember people talking about Jeb as the heir apparent. And then during W's first term, I still remember there being talk of Jeb being the next in line after him. I would have bet good money 4 years ago that Jeb would be the next Republican nominee. Dude just disappeared.

[Chef Jim]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

 

You bring up an interesting thought about Jeb...I was still in high school and not very in-tune with politics during the lead-up to the 2000 election, but I think I remember people talking about Jeb as the heir apparent. And then during W's first term, I still remember there being talk of Jeb being the next in line after him. I would have bet good money 4 years ago that Jeb would be the next Republican nominee. Dude just disappeared.

 

Thank his brother.

[SDS]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

 

You bring up an interesting thought about Jeb...I was still in high school and not very in-tune with politics during the lead-up to the 2000 election, but I think I remember people talking about Jeb as the heir apparent. And then during W's first term, I still remember there being talk of Jeb being the next in line after him. I would have bet good money 4 years ago that Jeb would be the next Republican nominee. Dude just disappeared.

 

If the charge about Republicans being "stupid" has merit - this is where it has some traction. As soon as W said he wanted to be prez - someone needed to pull him aside and tell him "no". Instead, they put all their political capital behind this guy. If the party wanted a family insider then Jeb was the guy. Jeb was Micheal. George was Fredo.

 

Even then - after all the anger, after all the money, after the fall of the stock market, after running a terrible campaign - McCain may only lose by 4-7 points in the popular vote. Truly remarkable.

[bartshan-83]

Jeb was Micheal. George was Fredo.

[PromoTheRobot]

well here is a scenario that i think would have probably played itself out better:

McCain winning the Republican primary in 2000.

 

 

I just wish McCain could have beaten W in 2000.

 

Totally agree. McCain of 2000 would have been a great US president. We'd be much better off.

 

PTR

[swede316]

If the charge about Republicans being "stupid" has merit - this is where it has some traction. As soon as W said he wanted to be prez - someone needed to pull him aside and tell him "no". Instead, they put all their political capital behind this guy. If the party wanted a family insider then Jeb was the guy. Jeb was Micheal. George was Fredo.

 

Even then - after all the anger, after all the money, after the fall of the stock market, after running a terrible campaign - McCain may only lose by 4-7 points in the popular vote. Truly remarkable.

I lived in Florida while Jeb was governor...He did a great job. Too bad his bro f*#@ked him. He would have made a great president. Maybe in 2012.

 

Yea...I find it interesting that Obama only wins by less than 7% of the popular vote. I wonder if African Americans had actually looked into his policies if they would have voted 99% to 1%. That is an all telling statistic there.