The Problem that the Republicans have for 2012:

I actually posted this back on Oct. 10th, but now that the election is over.. I think it's pretty spot on.

Here was the original post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7408854


To explain my point, let's start with democrats. Back in February, 2008 we had 2 candidates remaining with nearly identical views, but opposite approaches to achieve those views. They looked opposite (black male vs. white female) and they had very different backgrounds. But, at the end of the day - their political view of this country is so similar that part of the reason that the primary got so ugly was because the only way to differentiate between the two was in style - not substance.

Although the democratic primary seemed rough (and it was!) it was easy for us to gel back together.. because most people care more about the destination then the vehicle they take to get there. We're now riding along in the Obama car.. but most would have been fine with the Hillary SUV as well.

Now let's look at the REPUBLICANS:

The Republicans are going to have a much bigger problem. They have two very different sets of ideals - and i'm not sure if many in the party even realize it. There are SOCIAL Conservatives, and FISCAL Conservatives.. and the two sides are increasingly becoming more at odds with each other (and then there are the Neocons as well). They will co-habitate if it helps them get a republican elected.. but frankly that only works if both sides are getting what they want. In George W. Bush - the Social Conservatives got everything they wanted.. and the Fiscal conservatives got fucked. Of the 30% who still support GWB, 99% of them are Social conservatives. Almost none of them are Fiscal.

Additionally, the likelihood of them winning the '08 election is quickly fading (they DIDN'T!!). If they don't win (and they won't) - they are going to have to blame someone or something. The media will be fun for a while.. but eventually they're going to realize that the same media was in place when George won 2 elections.. so maybe they need to look at something else. And THAT is when they're going to start pointing the finger at each other.

Fiscal Conservatives are going to point at Sarah Palin (Happening TODAY ON FOX ALREADY). She's a total idiot, and completely incompetent, they will say. She got nailed with an ETHICS violation for God's sake! Ohh, and how "fiscally conservative" is she, if she had no problem asking for that Bridge to Nowhere before she got caught and said "Thanks but no Thanks". They're going to paint her as a bible-thumping check writer.. just like her predecessor - George W. Bush (the least popular president in modern history). Additionally, Fiscal conservatives tend to be on the higher end of the IQ (and earnings)scale. Many are in the banking & finance or doctor / lawyer sectors, and they appreciate a quality Ivy League education. They've stood by and watched their base call the Ivy League Democrats like Obama "Elite", but secretly they are hoping for a candidate of their own who has Harvard, Yale or Stamford someplace on their resume, and actually has the brain power to back it up (unlike Bush who got in on Daddy's good name). Because of this, they will want to see a Mitt Romney or someone similar (fiscally) nominated.

Social Conservatives are going to point that finger right back at the Fiscal ones. They're going to say that Sarah was their savior, and McCain would have lost by a much LARGER margin then if she wasn't on the ticket. The "Fiscal" conservatives are responsible for the horrible recession that we're currently in (along with the democrats of course) because they're the ones who kept pushing the "deregulation" memo, watched and applauded the wall-street greed, and reaped the rewards from it. Many social conservatives are on the lower end of the IQ (and earnings) scale, and do not like their "rich" conservative cousins much better then the snobby, elite & well educated democrats. Fiscal conservatives are always calling for smaller government with less influence - and how can they possibly push through their social agenda if everything is left up to the states? They need to be able to get SCOTUS judges on the bench who will happily turn over Roe v. Wade, and ensure that a constitutional amendment is added to protect the sanctity of marriage. This must be mandated EVERYWHERE.. not just the red states. To Social Conservatives, it does them no good if the people in Utah can run to California to have a quickie abortion and then drive through to get a gay marriage (ironically, I don't think those two activities happen in conjunction with each other very often)!! Because of this, they will want to see a Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee nominated (with the new addition of Prop 8 getting passed, Social Con's are going to think they're even MORE right.. the country isn't as liberal as people say it is).

THIS is going to make it much more difficult for the two sides to come together. They no longer have the same philosophical views. They never really did, but in Reagan and Bush 1, they were able to kid themselves, and force the two sides together into an awkward but functioning relationship.

George W. Bush and Sarah Palin have ruined the ho-hum conservative marriage, and Obama is going to be like Child Support & Alimony all wrapped in one. It's time to pay up!

The question is what do they do to transform and build up again? How do they regain power after Rove is to old to care and his policies and tactics to outdated to keep up with the internet age?

Discuss:

In fact, I wrote something rather similar a while back, except that I divided them into three groups rather than two, separating them into the Fiscals, the Socials, and the Neocons, with the Fiscals and Neocons being largely separated on the issue of military-industrial complex/war issues. I can live with either model--your 2 groups or my 3.

I kind of saw this coming.. but to see it start so quickly - the day after the election only shows how extremely fast this division is going to hit.

So who gets to keep the "Republican" name if they actually do split in 2? Or do they just continue to battle each other and then watch no one to turn out to vote on election day?

On the flip side.. i can see a smaller shift on the democratic side. We have issues we agree on (healthcare, wars, etc.) but Prop 8 showed how many democrats aren't happy with supporting gay marriage as well. Perhaps those are the fiscal liberal, social conservative voters.. who happened to put economy above abortion this cycle. Catholic independents are a big group here.. not reliable and can shift either way depending on how the wind blows.

It's gonna be an interesting 4 years.

which I probly didn't do, thinking it was too minor to be worth anybody's attention I don't remember that I said a whole lot more than I did rught here. I'll look, though.

Started mine last night. Thanks!

I have no idea if anybody ever actually reads mine, but I use it to stash things I write & want to refer to later.