Republican Reboot?
Maybe state Republicans will now reboot and seek ways to recapture key voting areas outside Philly. Or not.
Republican Reboot?
John Baer, Daily News Political Columnist
(A brief discussion twixt Baer & Baer’s editor, a.k.a. BE)
BE: So, Pennsylvania Republicans must be pretty distraught and looking for ways to change their ways.
JB: You’d think so. They lost the presidency, a shot at a Senate seat and all three state row offices.
BE: But they’re not distraught?
JB: Well, no. They still control both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s office.
BE: Yeah but surely Tuesday’s results bode ill for the GOP future. Surely they're looking to revamp their direction and policies to recapture the Philly burbs again. Surely they're rethinking hard-line positions on budget cuts, immigration, voter ID, the female vote, guns, gays...
JB: Uh, actually, no. What they're doing is blaming Philadelphia.
BE: Oh?
JB: Yep. Wednesday, House GOP Speaker Sam Smith said he was told 90% of city precincts turned out 90% of their votes, and that is "questionable." When asked if he was suggesting fraud he said, "Maybe a good investigative reporter could track some of that down."
BE: But city turnout was about 60%.
JB: I'm just telling you was he said he was told. And, trust me, other GOPers are saying similar things less publicly, and a little more graphically.
BE: But they also lost Bucks, Montco and Delaware counties. Shouldn't they be rethinking stuff?
JB: They already have. It's called voter ID and redistricting. Both issues got tied up in court this time but GOP thinking put them in play and GOPers say they'll be in place come next election: new district lines more favorable to Republicans, and a new ID law to help keep down that "questionable" Philly vote.
BE: So their reboot already has happened. Pretty good planning.
JB: And clever, to boot.
Comments (45)
- its funny to read comments from folks trying to delude themselves into believing only brown people who wanted handouts elected Obama. Obama couldnt have won states like Ohio, Michigan and Wisconson without blue collar white voters, especially union members. What really disturbs the Obama haters is that many working class whites identified more with Obama and his positions than Mitt and the GOP. These folks want to believe that everyone votes along racial lines when thats not the case. Obama got almost 40% of the 72% of voters who were white. Thats a lot of people. I haven't seen a breakdown on how he did with white women, but I suspect he won that group.
— Yakov - the "responsible parent" would be the one who says in a time of record deficits I am going to cut taxes 20% and expand military spending by $200b a year. That is responsibility at its best. The country is broke but Romney says the government can afford to slash taxes by a few hundred billion a year. Paul Ryan's budget actually did nothing to reduce the deficit for the first 5-10 years, it balanced in like 20-22 years and even that was based on ridiculous growth assumptions and the fantasy that you could get huge program cuts through congress.— Yakov
- Papa Hemingway wrote: "Here's the hard reality of it. If the GOP continues business as usual, they will see their house majority slashed in two years, and they sure won't see the white house for a long long time. The sensible people are tired of it, and they let you know Tuesday."
Yes, everyone involved in Tuesday's election should take a look in the mirror.
We Republicans increased our number of governors to 32. We increased our majority in the House slightly and their winning margins increased. (Here in PA, we picked up a Dem seat). If Romney would have matched McCain's 2008 numbers he would have won the popular vote (although probably not the Electoral). Mr. Obama's raw vote total declined.
It's very hard to unseat an incumbent. Only once in the past 100 years have the Republicans dumped a seated president (Reagan v. Carter in 1980). But Romney made a credible effort. Next time, the Democrats will also go through a destructive primary in order to select a nominee. That takes money away from the general as well as exposes the candidate on controversial issue stands and statements.
The tide comes in and it flows out. Out of the last four presidential elections, we've won two and the Democrats have won two.
Republicans take heart for 2014 -- the party out of power during off-year elections usually picks up seats in Congress and the public may have Obama/Democrat fatigue in 2016 and sweep in Marco Rubio/Paul Ryan/Susanna Martinez/Chris Christie or some other rising Republican by then.
I'd rather have President Romney. But I'm optimistic about the party's chances.— yahzooman - 1. the GOP has lost popular vote in 5 out of last 6 elections. Lets not forget Bush lost popular vote.
2. The 2010 results were based on the fact that the electorate in midterms is whiter than the country as a whole. Its not a reflection of the views of the country as a whole
3. House seats are mostly safe due to gerrymandering
4. winning on the state level is far different because social issues and deficit issues arent typically on the table. Furthermore, republican state officials in many states are to the left of the party as a whole. Look at christie, he is not an acceptable conservative to many.
5. The demographics are not going back so the notion that this is just a temporary setback is nonsense. If the same electorate votes in the 2014 midterms republicans would lose dozens of seats.
6. If the economy is stronger in 2 years dont expect any gains in House and senate. There is a good chance economy will be better and Obama's approval rating will be higher in 2 years.
7. The primary in 2008 was not destructive because Obama and hillary didnt spend a lot of time trying to get to the left of one another. I wouldnt expect anything different in 2016. In the GOP primary challengers have to work hard to appeal to the tea party and talk radio types to make it out alive.
8. People arent going to vote for GOP candidate in 2016 only because they think its their "turn" to be in white house. What happens will depend on the PLATFORM and the tone of the party at that time. To suggest that they can just repeat what we saw in 2012 and get different results due to Obama fatigue is ridiculous.— Yakov - Wow, Completely delusional. The demographics of the country has changed and will change more before every future election. If Republicans don't attract minorities, it's mathematically unlikely that they'll ever win a national election. I know you guys hate math and facts but there it is. Nough said. — MikeP
- @scotty and deltav: gee obama and those "handlers" with their "obamaphones" and magical powers dialed up and timed the financial crisis wave(s)in '08 so he'd win. and then they dialed up the catastrophic wave(s) of sandy in 2012. boy, he (obama)and these "handlers" must of put christie under a spell and mesmerized the "47%" of america to re-elect him.— ihatenewyorkers
- Speaker Smith showed his ignorance by suggesting there might be a good investigative reporter anywhere near Philly...unless the story involved someone with a view that went against the libs.— Jethro66
- Yahzoo, you destroy your credibility right away by saying that the Republicans increased their majority in the House. They had 242 and won 234. Again, this majority is due 100% to gerrymandering, as the Democrats received 53,952,240 votes for the House and the Republicans received 53,402,643 votes for the House, with only a few primarily West Coast votes remaining to be counted. Keep reading something into the election that was not there. The Democrats received a pretty complete victory, and only political maneuvering by the Republicans (I'm not saying it's illegal, but it's wrong) to protect their House candidates prevented a complete Democratic takeover of the Federal Government. Continue to believe that the right message is being sent on your behalf as a Republican and what should have happened in this election is what will happen next time. Meanwhile, what do you say we call a truce and see if Boehner will actually come to the table with proposals that increase revenue and do not put the pain of any cuts solely on those who can least afford it.— Palestra Jon
- let's see if obozo the charlatan "comes to the table" ready to make cuts to medicare and SS
— hannibal barca - Oops, let me just add the link for my statistics on numerical voting for the House:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/07/1159631/americans-voted-for-a-democratic-house-gerrymandering-the-supreme-court-gave-them-speaker-boehner/
— Palestra Jon - Republicans have taken the "Old, White, Voter" for granted. Many of us still have our conscience and intellect, and many of us were activists in our youth, who lived through the Civil Rights movement. And the voter suppression effort rammed through our legislature (thanks Mike Turzai), in the guise of preventing "Voter fraud" were deja vu. Why not repeal the 15th and 19th amendments, and forget the Voter ID sham???I voted a straight ticket Democratic slate, for the first time in over 40 years. I will change my registration to DEM, and any PA legislator who supports true, fair voter ID laws will have to work to ensure our Commonwealth provides Voter ID with a nonpartisan oversight.— 8is2much
- Hannibal, Social Security is solvent and needs no cuts. Medicare is another issue. While my preference would be to enact a full blown single payer national health plan that would incorporate Medicare, I realize that isn't happening now. So actuarial changes have to be made and reductions in benefits for those with high income need to be incorporated. But we owe a duty to our elderly and should not pay for two unfunded wars on the backs of our parents. By the way, if you want to get it on politically (and your continuing wingnut excess like calling Obama Obozo), bring it on. I'll take you right off the cliff with me and after the mandatory expiration of the Bush tax cuts followed by the mandatory military cuts that are required if there is no deal will have you begging for a deal where the military receives more revenue and taxes are cut from the new much higher rates. Your choice---but you have no leverage. You won't get a better deal for a Grand Compromise than now. After the cliff, you can only beg.— Palestra Jon
- if them democrats want to drive the country off a cliff and refuse to compromise, that is on them. boehner has already agreed in rpinciple to raise taxes. then obama's new-normal of 8% unemployment will look like a picnic compared to the destruction the democrats would wreak. and btw i have no problem with defense cuts as part of a solution to balance the budget
and if SS has no problem, why is it already paying out more than it takes in? the SS trustees 2012 report states that SS will be bankrupt by 2033:
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee12-pr.html— hannibal barca - Here's an article about voter fraud in Philly:
Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations. Coincidentally (or not), Mr. Obama received "astronomical" numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received "over 99%" of the vote.
Ward 4, which also had a poll watcher dressed in Obama attire, went massively for Obama. Mr. Obama received 99.5% of the vote, defeating Mr. Romney 9,955 to 55.
Is it odd that a county that expelled GOP inspectors and had people openly campaigning for Obama ended with 99.5% for Obama and 9955 votes for him? It's up to you to decide.
Another problem: "Voter turnout in Philadelphia was around 60 percent, according to state election figures." In these precincts it was well over 90% according to House Speaker Sam Smith of Pennsylvania.
Link:
http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/fraud-in-pa-obama-got-over-99-of-vote.html
I'm not familiar with this site so it should not be taken as gospel.
However, it raises some questions.— yahzooman - Jim Carvell called it. PA is Philly and Pittsburgh at the corners and Alabama in the middle. Living in Bradford County it is heavy Republican. Funny that up here you would think they would all be hard working people. In Canton half the population is on public assitance.— Jeff C.
Popular Posts
About this blog
John Baer has been covering politics and government for the Daily News since 1987. The National Journal in 2002 called Baer one of the country's top 10 political journalists outside Washington, saying Baer has, "the ability to take the skin off a politician without making it hurt too much." E-mail John at baerj@phillynews.com.
John is the author of the book "On The Front Lines of Pennsylvania Politics: Twenty-Five Years of Keystone Reporting" (The History Press, 2012). Reach John at baerj@phillynews.com.
John Baer
Daily News Political Columnist
John is the author of the book "On The Front Lines of Pennsylvania Politics: Twenty-Five Years of Keystone Reporting" (The History Press, 2012). Reach John at baerj@phillynews.com.
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: