The GOP was favored demographically more in this election than they will be in 2016.  More Red states were involved.  Yet Illinois, Massachusetts,Maryland and other very blue states elected Republican governors.

Election campaigns avoid specifics. We hear about leadership, bi-partisanship, compromise, reform,  and problem solving, (not to mention the proverbial Hope and Change). All of this means nothing. It sounds like blah, blah blah… yet fortunes in campaign cash are poured into such meaningless tripe. Can it possibly have any influence?

The Republicans have a great advantage in running against a strong negative.  It relieves them of the need to be specific in their proposals.  The Democrats had this same advantage in 2008.  The Republicans will not get this luxury in 2016.

The Democrats have three great advantages: a cohesive voting bloc, a very strong political management team, and a very compliant media.  The Republicans are hindered by a divided constituency with their own litmus tests.  Abortion is one litmus test, gun rights is another.  The libertarian wing is another.  But the dominant litmus test this election is Obamacare and it is a stronger unifier than the GOP can usually muster.  Those who claim that Obamacare will be accepted by the American people heard otherwise loud and clear, even though employer mandates and the Cadillac plan taxes had been postposed until after the election.

The race card, the war on women accusation and other divisiveness are dead.  We are far from the civil rights struggles and the victory in equal rights takes an important weapon away from the Democrats.   The young blacks and women can now fortunately assume a level of equality without the struggles their parents endured. But the old Democrats are unwilling to let go of that struggle.  They won and are now searching for an equally unifying purpose.

The Republicans are way behind the Democrats in campaign management, the use of the new media and the ability to target message effectively.  This was very obvious during both of Obama’s victories and it is evident in this election. It just is not enough for the Democrats to overcome the strong negatives of the current administration.

The Republicans have a very tough sell.  The limitations of government initiatives and power, the dangers of moral hazards in fiscal policy, the tradeoffs of intrusive fiscal and monetary policy are very unsexy campaign fodder.  But they could highlight the increasing corruption inherent in the crony capitalism practiced by the Democrats. The appeal to individual power would attract many younger voters.

Anti-incumbent fever is bipartisan. Many voters are just intellectually lazy, frustrated with whoever is in power and unwilling to dig beyond this frustration. One reason we are so frustrated is because we have come to depend on the government for tasks they are ill suited for.  The more that we depend on the government for solutions for every social problem (fairness) the less effective they become at their core strengths- protecting individual rights, basic infrastructure, equal protection under the law and security.

How the GOP handles the new power from this election will greatly influence the outcome in 2016, regardless of who runs.

In Georgia and other races  the polls were worthless. We kept hearing about a tight race and a few weeks ago a few polls had Michelle Nunn ahead.  I could not understand how a red state like GA with an administration with such negatives as Obama’s could even be close.  Well it wasn’t. Have the polls become too partisan?  

Greatly benefiting the GOP was the maturing or the lower profile of the Tea Party.  They did not run  under-qualified candidates into high offices with little experience.  The GOP benefited from previous state election victories which became a breeding ground for  more experienced and qualified candidates that found greater victories in this election.  Under qualified candidates imbued by the media with celebrity status became a loser for the Democrats in the candidacies of Sandra Fluke (an incredibly appropriate name) and Wendy Davis.

print