November 7th, 2012

mini me + poo

1983 or 1987 or...?

Around 2000, there was an interesting article wondering where the Tories were in relation to Labour's electoral woes in the 1980s. Were they at the 1983 stage, over a decade away from being able to win, or closer to 1992, unlucky - as they thought - to lose, but the other side's mismanagement of the economy would lead to a landslide next time?

The same thoughts apply to the Republicans now. Bill Clinton famously won his first term being reminded that 'it's the economy, stupid' in terms of the issue which meant he could beat an incumbent. Here, the US economy is still in a mess and could get worse, yet Obama held onto most of the states he won last time.

The solution to the Republicans' woes is bleeding obvious - do what it takes to get more 'minority' voters voting for them. It shouldn't be too hard to do. Step one, point out how decades of strong support for the Democrats hasn't exactly achieved as much as it should: they've been taken for granted, just as here. Step two, change the minority-bashing policies and kick out the politicians who've been pandering to them.

But that's exactly what the Republican activist base do not want to do. They, like the majority of Labour activists in the run-up to the 1983 General Election, reckon that the problem is that they are too close to the wishy-washy centre and what's needed is to appeal even more to the dwindling core vote even if that means they're seen as unelectable by the majority.

This means the Republicans could be at the 1983 stage: a generation away from winning the Presidency again.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Unfortunately, they're still able to win enough seats in Congress to make sure that no Democrat President will be able to do very much. All this talk about 'working together for the good of the nation'? That's what they said last time...

Who the next President will be is another interesting question (assuming Obama doesn't die in office!) The race has certainly started, of course.

I have a bet with L. She thinks it will be Hilary Clinton. If she's right, I have to say how effective homoeopathy is for four years. (If it's another Democrat woman, one year.) I think that's very unlikely - rightly or wrongly, too many people hate Hilary too much and I can't think of another Democrat woman who could win the nomination next time. If I'm right, JA and I get to go to a US theme park. Now which one shall it be...? :)

This entry was originally posted at, because despite having a permanent account, I have had enough of LJ's current owners trying to be evil. Please comment there using OpenID - comment count unavailable have and if you have an LJ account, you can use it for your OpenID account. Or just join Dreamwidth! It only took a couple of minutes to copy all my entries here to there.