Skip to main content

The GOP is setting themselves up for another general election disappointment

While the Republican Party has, largely due to gerrymandering, the Citizens United decision, and enhanced voter ID laws, made the most of midterm elections in garnering control of both the House and Senate, they've regularly failed in the general election the past several cycles. Over the past 24 years, the Republican Party has won the popular vote just once, when George W. Bush defeated John Kerry in the 2004 election. If the Supreme Court had ruled differently in the 2000 election, it would have been possible for the Democratic Party to have reeled off six consecutive victories in presidential elections. While history dictates the eventual Republican nominee would have a 50.1%+ chance of winning this coming election due to the fact we've had a Democratic president over the past 8 years and Republican voters are likely to be more energized to vote than Democratic voters, the GOP is finding a way to set themselves up for disappointment yet again in the general election.

The GOP is struggling to find an identity and this has been ongoing for a number of years now. In 2000, Arizona Senator John McCain didn't make it through the Republican primaries because he was deemed as too "liberal" according to conservative media personalities and voters. In 2008, however, this so-called "moderate" Republican senator was the party's nominee, mainly due to the fact he was seen as the party's best chance to win the election. In the four preceding years, McCain's voting record went from "moderate" to extremely conservative. He then attempted to claim to the Republican base his recent voting record was more representative of him than his voting record prior to that, before switching course in the general election, as he attempted to tell Independent voters his recent voting record wasn't as representative of him as his voting record prior to that. This happened again in 2012 when Mitt Romney was the party's nominee. With the 24-hour news media being what it is, the party failed to see and realize the potential long-term damage constant flip-flopping/identity swaps could have on their nominee, and this resulted in two consecutive losses in presidential elections.

Instead of continuing to go with the most "moderate," most "electable" candidate, Republican voters have appeared to go a different route, in nominating Donald Trump as their party's representative for the 2016 presidential election. According to polls, Trump is the only remaining Republican candidate who gets consistently defeated by likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in November's election. Ted Cruz is about even with Clinton, and both Marco Rubio and John Kasich are consistently defeating Secretary Clinton in a hypothetical matchup. Regardless of the electability argument, Donald Trump has a solid lead in the delegate count, is currently favored to win Ohio and Florida in a pair of huge March 15th primaries, and appears to be the lone remaining candidate who has the chance to win the required 1,237 delegates in order to guarantee the party's nomination at the convention. While Republican voters have placed the businessman mogul atop the GOP nominee leaderboard, establishment Republicans haven't taken too kindly to their party's current frontrunner. The party's most recent nominee, Mitt Romney, spoke at length and in unambiguous terms yesterday to decry Trump's behavior, his policy positions, and encouraged the party to get behind one of the three other remaining candidates (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or John Kasich). On the debate stage last night, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio spent 75% of their time bashing Trump - all of them claiming the GOP frontrunner of being a "fraud," a "phony," a "bully," etc. Yet when Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly asked Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich whether or not they'd support and vote for Donald Trump if he became the party's nominee, they all said yes. Let's think about that for a moment. If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, which appears to be likely, all Democrats will have to do is air ads of Trump's controversial comments, as well as fellow Republicans' harsh words directed toward the party's representative come November. This has all the ingredients of another general election disappointment for the GOP.

Potential ad:

Narrator: "What do you think about Donald Trump?"

Rubio: "He's a con artist!"

Cruz: "He's a liar!"

Romney: "He's a phony! He's also not a good businessman. Let me list all of his failed businesses..."

Yeah, if Donald Trump becomes the GOP nominee, his Republican colleagues may have given Democrats all they need to win the November election.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"