I've said elsewhere that this was probably the last election where the Republicans stood a real chance of gaining the American Presidency with a program that mainly appeals to prosperous suburban whites and holds little appeal to most women and almost no appeal at all to racial minorities.
If the GOP is to survive, what do you think it would have to look like? What could it possibly look like?
rflmao! - kk
Interesting question, I would like to posit the contrary:
- In 2016 Obama cannot be re-elected
- If, as everyone believes, he deepens his policies, the country will not have left the deep recession he caused/worsened
- Which are the options for the Democrat party? Hillary or Biden (both 70+).
Compare with the GOP:
- Romney lost but no-one of the "new stars" was burnt (with the possible exception of Ryan).
- They have Jindal, Rubio, Christie, Ayers... all 40-50 year olds with brilliant futures (and all new Reaganites).
I would say, then, that the Democrats have bought themselves a problem with this election - laying the ground to a Republican re-take of the Senate in 2014, of the Presidency in 2016 and a new Reaganite era.
It can't come too soon.
You couldn't possibly be so infected by Obama derangement syndrome to think that the recession that began before he took office was caused by him, could you?
Nor could you think that the recession has gotten worse. Considering that we were on the brink of a depression four years ago and now things have improved greatly. Millions of jobs added, home prices rising, more than a quarter of the deficit cut, GM doing amazing, and Wall Street doing amazing. Whether you like Obama or not you are an irrational partisan hack if you think he caused the recession and made it worse.
Castro, Warren, Frye, and Baldwin. All young democratic leaders and victors..
Proof that not all atheists, if you are an atheist, respect truth and reason.
Polls during the runup to the election showed something the Republicans ignored, which was that Americans were optimistic about the future. Meanwhile the Republicans in general and the post-convention Romney were selling gloom and doom, implying that things hadn't really got better when they clearly had. They also discounted the deep depression you mentioned that was avoided, pretending that avoiding it had nothing to do with Obama's policies.
So, you think it all comes down to the age of the candidate, not the content of the policies s/he proposes? You don't really understand American politics if you think that. And, as has been pointed out, the choices in 2016 won't be limited to those three. They will chosen by Democratic Americans, not in some smoky backroom.
I think Unseen might be thinking about demographic changes in the constituency. Do you think these candidates will be able to adapt to such changes and sell their platform accordingly?
For not being a citizen, your evaluations seems a little sharp and rings a little hollow. It seems obvious to me, and a few others, that Obama inherited a pile of shit from Bush. It is unclear if 4 years would be enough to correct and cleanup the litter box of Bush's 8 years.
With all the money that fell into this election, it seems to me that the Republicans could not buy this election, and all the fear mongering held little traction. I consider atleast some Republicans to be little more than saboteurs, and a little less than statesmen. If Republicans ever get a position of power again, it will be a little too soon for me, but 'change' might even work for them!
I don't know if the Republicans were engaging in wishful thinking, are stupid about economics, or what. However, the idea that the US President can "fix" a slow economy on his own, when so much of our economy depends on trade with Europe, whose economic problems, on the whole, are far worse than our own, is just simply laughable. Had Mitt Romney been President the last four years the economy would still be slow but the rich would be a bit richer and the poor a bit poorer.
I do understand that the media do not show what is not sensational, but many countries in Europe are doing quite alright. If you're thinking of Greece, Italy, Portugal and Ireland being in economic dowturn, please remember that in regards to GDP this is nothing compared to the whole. Germany for instance is going great!
A part from that minor criticism I think that you are spot on in regards to it being laughable that the US president can fix everything by himself.
I'm not sure where you get your news, but were it not for the perhaps forced and desperate generosity of the German government, the Eurozone might already be a thing of the past. Germany is prosperous and well-run, but Germans will tire one of these days of throwing their ever-devaluing Euros into the Eurozone black hole.
The people in the countries with the biggest problems—Greece, Spain, Italy—seem ill-inclined to help Germany out of this mess by accepting harsh austerity measures. If nothing changes soon, Germany may start printing Deutsche Marks and withdraw from the union. You might want to take a look at this and this and this.
I would be more inclined to think that the countries who do not accept the austerity measures will in the end be left to fend for themselves.
"Europe, whose economic problems, on the whole, are far worse than our own"
Again, not saying that the whole of Europe is doing fine, I'm merely pointing out that part of Europe, in fact the vast majority of European states, not just those in the Euro zone are doing quite alright.
Would you like me to take economic details from the states of the US that are the worst off in regards to their economy and compare that to the best peforming countries in Europe? Or do you think that that is a bit silly?
Don't pick the worst of the Euro zone states and pretend that this is a good reflection of Europe as a whole.