"The math is not in our favor this cycle"

|

So sayeth Mitt Romney, chair of the Republican Governors Association, in this Wall Street Journal article about the likelihood of Democrats taking back a majority of statehouses in 2006. Retirements, broken tax pledges, and GOP fatigue are listed as probable causes.

NEXT: Vile Betrayer, New Superpower, or Both?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I sense GOP fatigue, but I’m not sure I sense a shift towards the Dems.

    I have religious right fatigue.

  2. Looking back, the assumption among Rove et al that the “rally ’round the flag” effect after 9/11 represented a sustainable, long term realignment was just silly.

    Major dislocating events may open the door for a realignment, but it requires the gaining party to respond to the event with a positive program and platform that the public can actually rally behind. The Great Depression was followed by the New Deal. The unrest of the 60s was followed by “traditional values/law & order” Republicanism.

    If there had actually been the realignment that the GOP strategists had hailed, people wouldn’t be talking about the idiosynchrasies of a certain election cycle removing the GOP from power.

  3. The democrats beating the republicans is all part of the natural cycle: in order to maintain the illusion that democracy creates freedom, one party must periodically unseat the other.

    By obediently alternating back and forth between parties, we continually validate the system as a whole. The longer democrats or republicans are in power, the more campaign finance reform and ‘rock the vote’ specials we will see.

    But this is not a conspiracy: it is an evolved state. Political memes compete in the environment of all American minds. Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ is a derivative of the more fundamental ‘survival of the stable.’ Though a small, constitutionally restricted government may be the most ‘fit’ configuration, a natural inclination for groups to gather political power means that limited government is not the most ‘stable.’

  4. Mitt should know, he probably realizes that he’d have a hard time keeping his own statehouse if he were running again.

  5. This is a perfect time for the party that represent our (not you Joe) views to steal a bunch of local offices.

    But instead, they’ll spend half of the budget on two 30 second ads on a Thursday night show on Fox. Or an unwinnable Governor’s race in Wisconsin.

    Yay.

    Being a libertarian is like rooting for Temple’s football team.

  6. “Being a libertarian is like rooting for Temple’s football team”

    Wow. Never thought I’d see the day when something, anything, about Temple was described as “like” libertarianism.

    But you’re right.

  7. The problem isn’t math. It’s the inability of the GOP to actually do it.

    Got Bilk?

  8. Don’t count the GOP out yet. All they need to do is wave the flag, play some Toby Keith, speak glowingly about JEEZ-us, and Security Moms and NASCAR Dads will vote them back in.

  9. I would definitely agree that the Repubs are toast in ’06.

    If they weren’t running against Dems.

  10. I would definitely agree that the Repubs are toast in ’06.

    If they weren’t running against Dems.

    Hmmm …. but they aren’t only running against the Dems. There are third parties, you know. Hey! I smell opportunity! This is a chance for a Certain Third Party to make serious inroads in the next election cycle!

    Of course, you know the Third Party I have in mind.

    Our marginalization is at an end!

    Ah, ha ha ha ha! At last, victory is in our grasp!

  11. Come on, no posting entire irrelevant Green Party memos in comments…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.