It is easy to arm chair quarterback in retrospect with a perspective of what the losing team did wrong. I was surprised to watch Fox News and see all the Republicans put in their analysis and opinions. I heard rants about “dirty tricks” and even “voter fraud” of the “Obama machine” to more level-headed observations of the GOP candidate not being “articulate” and not “reaching out” to minorities (which is becoming a misnomer if you’re not talking about white anglo-saxon protestants [WASPs]).
No question, Romney ran a brilliant campaign. The GOP lost by over a hundred electorial votes (Florida is still counting their ballots). So, it could be argued that the election results were not the “squeaker” I and a good many others predicted–if you don’t qualify the figures. The popular vote was for practical purposes a 50-50 split. The House yet maintains a Republican majority and the Senate does not have a Democratic majority. More Republican than Democratic governors were elected. Plainly, the GOP got its message across, and not to just middle-aged whites.
Both sides preached a message of “change.” Excuse me, it would be more accurate to say both sides carried a message about reaction to change that’s already happened. In that respect, I don’t think it wrong to say our political parties are out of touch with mainstream America. Afterall, the election results were also decided by a relative splinter of Independent voters, which are also fast becoming the not so minor minority. The Senate picked up a record 19 female senators; another not so minor minority.
Both President Obama and House Speaker Boehner have said the message is loud and clear: the public is fed-up with the gridlock in Congress. Amen to that. But I think the two leaders could be missing a more significant implication. I think the campaign indicated a redefinition of “conservative” and “liberal.” Moderation is no longer the middle of two extremes; it needs to shift if the GOP is going to survive and I think it will.
We live in a democracy where everyone has an equal voice. I expect alot of shouting to be heard.

The Founding Fathers intended the electoral college to be a check and balance; otherwise presidential elections would be determined by the most populous states. It can be argued the larger states elect the president anyway, since they have the most electoral votes but the system isn’t going to go away. Likewise, two opposing parties are a check and balance and go back to the split between Jefferson and Adams; otherwise extemism would run the country. (And it has in some instances, despite checks and balances.) The GOP will modify its platform. Hardly the first time a political party (or even a religious institution) has altered its agenda to accomodate changing times.

My opinion is that this is a better country when we have two viable parties, who despite their differences work for the betterment of all. Republicans have worked themselves into a corner where they do not connect with the important demographics of a changing society; they are relying on a shrinking portion of the electorate. If they continue on this path they will truly become irrelevant. Democrats lost 5 of the 6 elections from 1972 to 1992. They re-invented themselves, got new leadership and became relevant. It was not easy and at times painful, but it worked. Republicans can do the same. They will need to shed some of the more extreme views that they have acquired over the past decade or so, especially in the area of social issues – people don’t want their morals controlled by government, look at all the success of Prohibition. I would welcome a Republican Party who believes in smaller govt., fiscal restraint and strong defense.

Reports of the death of the GOP are, as Mark Twain said of reports of his demise, premature. There will be some re-tooling and they’ll figure out the demographic sooner or later and be competitive. It wasn’t so long ago that the Democrats were crying over their own near extinction ,http://www.theblaze.com/stories/stay-calm-conservatives-here-are-the-biggest-democrat-freak-outs-from-bushs-2004-re-election-victory/, but by becoming “Santa Claus and his down-and-dirty-
tricks elves” they have managed to buy back the majority of the electorate. So then, assuming the Constitution is still intact, (and I have faith that it will be) the GOP will be there in 2016.

Lamont, that is a very snobbish, elitist statement that reflects the attitude of so many of your party following the defeat. Guess all of you are following chief lemming O’Reilly. You realize that you are talking about 63mm of your fellow citizens, don’t you?

Well, the GOP took a f***ing Tuesday. Would have been safer with contraceptive. Elitist and snobbish because you are saying a majority of your fellow Americans can be bought. Kind of like that Mormon guy at the rich fundraiser. Honestly, Lamont, I didn’t know you were so obtuse.

The electorate is currently nearly evenly divided, but (and this is what Mr. Wickham’s essay was about) by the NEXT midterm election, and beyond, the unevenness will continue to tilt to the left. The GOP will continue to own the house for awhile yet, but eventually it too will fall into the Dems hands.