Main reasons of BJP's loss in this elections

[King Tendulkar]

Edited the children bit. As clearly some are very sensitive and may not get the JOKE

[seedhi]

Ah how the tines change!! Suddenly a loss makes even the ardent fan drop the surname Advani and go after "single national issues are long gone". Which National issue are you talking by the way?? When was the last time BJP raised a "National" issue?? Ram Temple?? Get real pal.

I am not saying that it is not the failure of the strong PM line of BJP. Definitely it did not work and I see more of Advani's lack of charisma as the reason. But it is a fact that local issues dominate the elections, but in a national campaign Advani is hardly expected to raise the issue of bad roads in xyz constituency in UP.

Why was Congress trounced in Bihar? Errr because it does not have a single leader of stature in the State perhaps?? Surely there is no voter out there who would simply because of a Central leadership. There are multiple reasons why any sane voter votes, one of them is how he relates to people in his local area. There is NO local Congressi leader worth its name in Bihar. On the other hand in the states that did have a local Congress leadership they rallied around Manmohan Singh. Simple.

Please, at least give credit to Nitish Kumar's governance. Ajit Jogi is in Chhattisgarh but BJP swept 10/11 seats there - again because of good governance of Raman Singh. In Orissa BJD swept again because of governance and clean image. Himachal ditto for BJP. Haryana ditto for Congress.

Long story short any election is decided on multiple issues, not one. And I would be very interested if you could pick me any assessment of 2009 elections that does NOT highlight the fact that Advani, and BJP, grossly erred in going after Manmohan Singh and are not paying the penalty.

I am saying the attacks on Manmohan Singh were only a peripheral factor, by the time they began BJP had already lost. If anything the much bigger factor was the Varun Gandhi fiasco (for which Advani is responsible for not dropping him), which led to Muslims going back to Congress in a big way in UP. Not just Muslims, even moderates would have been turned off by it. What could have been turned into an opportunity by Advani to take a moral high by at least denying VG the ticket was wasted. It distracted from a non-Hindutva campaign the BJP was trying to run. MJ Akbar has also written about it. This is what he says on his blog,

It would be wrong to dismiss everyone in the BJP as communal. But L K Advani's efforts to sustain the inclusive image fashioned by Atal Behari Vajpayee were constantly undermined by the rhetoric of leaders who did not understand that the language of conflict had passed its sell-by date. The turning point came with Varun Gandhi's immature speech. The BJP condemned it but did not disown it completely, for fear of losing the extreme in its search for the centre. What seems obvious now did not seem so clear then. Varun Gandhi should have been dropped as a candidate. Worse, Varun Gandhi fell in love with his new pseudo-aggressive image, and projected it in statements and pictures that went into every home through television. This young Gandhi even began to fantasise a future as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh. It is interesting that regional BJP leaders understood that this was toxic. The Madhya Pradesh party bluntly told Varun Gandhi he was not needed while the Bihar unit was relieved when Nitish Kumar refused hospitality to both Narendra Modi and Varun Gandhi.

[Lurker]

Please, at least give credit to Nitish Kumar's governance. Ajit Jogi is in Chhattisgarh but BJP swept 10/11 seats there - again because of good governance of Raman Singh. In Orissa BJD swept again because of governance and clean image. Himachal ditto for BJP. Haryana ditto for Congress.

I am not dismissing any good Governance at all, specially Nitish. I know first hand the huge impact that he has made at the State level. However what we are discussing here is can a Party (in this case Congress) make a significant impact purely by National policy? The best way to answer that is probably by a cricket analogy. If India plays another country on a spin track in India there is a good odd that India will win. Still you need Kumbles and Harbhajans to turn up and take wickets. Surely you can not field a team of Yuvraj Singhs and Sehwags and expect them to take wickets against an International opposition? In case of Bihar Congress is pretty much dead, compare this to UP where Congress leaders (both Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi) were contesting elections from and clearly there is a huge difference.

I am saying the attacks on Manmohan Singh were only a peripheral factor, by the time they began BJP had already lost. If anything the much bigger factor was the Varun Gandhi fiasco (for which Advani is responsible for not dropping him), which led to Muslims going back to Congress in a big way in UP. Not just Muslims, even moderates would have been turned off by it. What could have been turned into an opportunity by Advani to take a moral high by at least denying VG the ticket was wasted. It distracted from a non-Hindutva campaign the BJP was trying to run. MJ Akbar has also written about it. This is what he says on his blog,

Varun Gandhi issue, to me atleast, was always a non-issue. Here was a man who was uttering vitriolic and it was fairly evident that he would be booked by EC, which he was eventually. What was surprising was not that Advani did NOT drop him, but that BJP's bigwigs (including Jaitley and Rajnath Singh) rallied around him. They would say words to the effect of - We dont condone what Varun said, and then quickly mention how Varun got slapped with NSA and not Afzal Guru. It was quite diabolical and sent the wrong message. However this should not be confused with Advani's attack on Manmohan Singh. The attack was basically to suggest that India needed a strong man and not someone who takes orders from a different authority. In the process Advani managed to portray an image of himself as a person who would go after a mature, educated and by all accounts an intellectual. And yes it did make a difference in the end. xxx

[Lurker]

BJP reminds me of the Republicans ! Their voice is lost among the majority . All we hear is the the cacophony of Limabugh , Coulter and other far right. If Republicans have to be the majority again , they will have to embrace the Hispanics and be more lax on immigration and women's rights to choose , gay rights etc. Granted McCain was all that to some extent, but he could never lose the Iraq war baggage. After all he was the original proponent of the war and the subsequent surge. What BJP needs needs is more centrists like Vajpayee who was actually opposed to masjid destruction , was opposed to Modi aftermath the riots and who atleast had some muslim support. Looks like Modi is not the answer, others like Jaitley lacks mass appeal , Advani is done and dusted. BJP would be better served if the drop the Sena as well.

Very correct indeed KR. There is a lot of similiarities between BJP and Republicans, heavy backing seeped in religion being one of them. It will have to drop that image if it has to be a viable alternative for all seasons(and not merely after a riot) but one thing you have to keep in mind here, BJP is essentially the political wing of RSS. Would RSS drop its Hindu bias? Afraid not. xx

[seedhi]

I am not dismissing any good Governance at all, specially Nitish. I know first hand the huge impact that he has made at the State level. However what we are discussing here is can a Party (in this case Congress) make a significant impact purely by National policy? The best way to answer that is probably by a cricket analogy. If India plays another country on a spin track in India there is a good odd that India will win. Still you need Kumbles and Harbhajans to turn up and take wickets. Surely you can not field a team of Yuvraj Singhs and Sehwags and expect them to take wickets against an International opposition? In case of Bihar Congress is pretty much dead, compare this to UP where Congress leaders (both Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi) were contesting elections from and clearly there is a huge difference.

That does not explain Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Orissa, Himachal and to some extent MP and Gujarat. Anyway, we have to agree to disagree on this one.

Varun Gandhi issue, to me atleast, was always a non-issue. Here was a man who was uttering vitriolic and it was fairly evident that he would be booked by EC, which he was eventually. What was surprising was not that Advani did NOT drop him, but that BJP's bigwigs (including Jaitley and Rajnath Singh) rallied around him. They would say words to the effect of - We dont condone what Varun said, and then quickly mention how Varun got slapped with NSA and not Afzal Guru. It was quite diabolical and sent the wrong message.

I was more surprised by Jaitley. Rajnath is just the sort of person to score strategic self goals for tactical gains. If you noticed Modi never defended Varun Gandhi, he was clearly annoyed by the hijack of the governance agenda he was pursuing by VG issue. I think he himself realized the massive hole BJP had dug itself into on the VG issue.

However this should not be confused with Advani's attack on Manmohan Singh. The attack was basically to suggest that India needed a strong man and not someone who takes orders from a different authority. In the process Advani managed to portray an image of himself as a person who would go after a mature, educated and by all accounts an intellectual. And yes it did make a difference in the end.

It may have, in niche urban constituencies. I very much doubt it had any sway among the vast majority of the electorate. Again we have to agree to disagree. I for one believe that even if Advani had not called MMS a weak PM it wouldnt have had any impact on the results. I cant say the same about VG issue (affected BJP in UP, helped congress), internal fighting (sank BJP in Rajasthan, Uttarkhand, underperfromance in MP), caste factors (Gujarat), third party vote cut (MNS, Maharashtra).

[umpire]

>BJP is essentially the political wing of RSS. Would RSS drop its Hindu bias? Afraid not. Heck no, totally wrong Tell me why BJP can't win a seat in Kerala and Tamilnadu, they have strong presence in both the states.

[seedhi]

--deleted--

[Lurker]

That does not explain Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Orissa, Himachal and to some extent MP and Gujarat. Anyway, we have to agree to disagree on this one.

Look it would hard to do a state to state dissection simply because I do not have enough knowledge on exact going ons in all the states. My comment is generic in nature and in this context I was suggesting that it would be wrong to say the decision was entirely local in nature. I did find a very striking development however. BJP failed to win even a single seat from India's 4 major cosmopolitan towns. In Delhi it won 0. In Calcutta again 0. 0 in Mumbai too. 0 in Chennai too. So in effect it failed to send a single MP from India's political/economic/social/cultural capitals! And while BJP can celebrate its success in Bangalore (IT Capital) it is pretty fair to say there is no chance it will win the Central Govt unless it registers impressive victory atleast in Mumbai & Delhi.

It may have, in niche urban constituencies. I very much doubt it had any sway among the vast majority of the electorate. Again we have to agree to disagree. I for one believe that even if Advani had not called MMS a weak PM it wouldnt have had any impact on the results. I cant say the same about VG issue (affected BJP in UP, helped congress), internal fighting (sank BJP in Rajasthan, Uttarkhand, underperfromance in MP), caste factors (Gujarat), third party vote cut (MNS, Maharashtra).

I think we will have to disagree on this one. My personal experiences tells me otherwise. Advani's attack on Manmohan Singh backfired because MS was able to conclusively show how BJP could hardly complain when its own record was abysmal. Also a small, but perhaps significant issue, was that of economy. In this recessionary times it was always comforting to see MS at the helm of the affairs. At the G20 meeting he was probably the best expert on the subject and so while the right wing was busy concentrating on how "meek and subdued" he looked on stage, turns out the man impresses more Indian than you would think. xxx

[Lurker]

Heck no, totally wrong. Tell me why BJP can't win a seat in Kerala and Tamilnadu, they have strong presence in both the states.

Strong presence yes but the party is still very much in nascent stage in the 2 states. I wouldnt read too much into their debacle in these states really. I was checking the result of Maharastra. Turns out BJP lost even in Nagpur, the HQ of RSS. Turns out there is no good news for them this summer. xxx

[TheBoyPlunger]

BJP reminds me of the Republicans ! Their voice is lost among the majority . All we hear is the the cacophony of Limabugh , Coulter and other far right. If Republicans have to be the majority again , they will have to embrace the Hispanics and be more lax on immigration and women's rights to choose , gay rights etc. Granted McCain was all that to some extent, but he could never lose the Iraq war baggage. After all he was the original proponent of the war and the subsequent surge. What BJP needs needs is more centrists like Vajpayee who was actually opposed to masjid destruction , was opposed to Modi aftermath the riots and who atleast had some muslim support. Looks like Modi is not the answer, others like Jaitley lacks mass appeal , Advani is done and dusted. BJP would be better served if the drop the Sena as well.

The right-wing ideology has been on the wane since 2006 after the senate loss for the Dems, IMO the position of the BJP would be comparable to the Democrats after the loss in 2004. All the points below are applicable to both the party and the supporters of BJP(including me). Denial after first loss: Both NDA and Dems were in denial after the loss of 2004 and 2000 elections respectively. NDA did not attend the swearing in ceremony of the UPA govt and the Dems went to court and could not digest the defeat.The victory margin was too close -> BJP 138 and Cong 143 and a court verdict was needed for Bush. Campaign into the next elections Both believed that the next election is theirs for the taking.Both ran vicious and personal campaigns against the incumbent. BJP tried to have too many 'patches' and assumed that they would work. Dems attacked Bush and that was the single point agenda for 2004(recall Michael Moore's movie just before 2004 elections). Denial mode was still strong and they assumed it was a natural victory for them. The voters were taken for granted. After the defeat The writing is on the wall.Increased mandate for the incumbent.The NDA has accepted defeat and the humility is back. No scope for any denial. Dems had been written off in 2004 with both Senate and Presidency under Republicans. NDA and BJP has been written off. It would be interesting to see how the BJP reacts now. Will they react like the Reps of 2008 with extreme rigt wing reaction like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, ie, be in denial OR will they react like the Dems of 2004 - back to the drawing board and basics. From the looks of it, they are working on the centrist agenda atleast for now with MM Joshi(one of the more extreme right wingers) conceeding that one of the reasons for the loss is that they couldn't get the minority votes.

[umpire]

>Strong presence yes but the party is still very much in nascent stage in the 2 states. I wouldnt read too much into their debacle in these states really. >I was checking the result of Maharastra. Turns out BJP lost even in Nagpur, the HQ of RSS. Turns out there is no good news for them this summer. So it proves even RSS is not keen on BJP these days. BJP dropped Ram Mandir issue totally. BJP had "India Shining" campaign in 2004 under Vajapayee. It was good, positive campaign, what happened they lost These time around they were looking at 150-160 seats, but ended up around 120. So in reality they lost 30 seats that they wantd. Congress gained whatever left lost.

[TheBoyPlunger]

Congrats to Congress and UPA and the people of India. I think this election was decided in 5 key states: 1. Kerala and WB: The left was supposed to do badly but the margin of defeat was too big. Out of a total of around 60 seats, projections were 30 for left and 30 for UPA. The end result was 43 for the UPA. This added 13 seats to the UPA total. 2. UP: The Gandhi factor(Rahul and Varun) changed the game here. The expected tally was abt 20 seats for SP, 25 for NDA , 20 for BSP abt 15 for Congress. The end result was 20 for Congress and 13 for BJP. This made a 12 seat difference between the NDA and UPA. 3. AP: PRP and credit to YSR.The expected tally for Congress was abt 20 seats and the remaining 20 being split between the PRP, TDP and TRS. The end result was abt 30 for Congress. If the TSP-TRS combine was to have won close to 18 seats here and NDA expected to include both of them into a post poll alliance. This made a 20 seat difference between the NDA and UPA 4. TN: This state has puzzled me. The ADMK-PMK-MDMK combine was supposed to sweep the election based on past TN history with a tally of 30 for ADMk and 10 for UPA. The end results was abt 25 for UPA and 10 for ADMK-PMK-MDMK. This made a 35 seat difference between the NDA and UPA So these 5 states provided a 80 seat difference between UPA and NDA. Barring exceptions of Bihar and Karnataka, the UPA managed increase their seats in states where NDA was supposed to sweep(Gujarat, Assam and MP). The NDA failed to make an impact on any of the states that UPA was supposed to sweep - Haryana, Punjab, Delhi, Rajasthan.

[TheBoyPlunger]

The verdict based on the 3 fronts: Smaller Parties, aka, the Third Front: 1. They all counted their chickens before they hatched. They all assumed that the mandate of 2004 will be repeated and everybody positioned themselves for the PM post forgetting that there still was an election to win. 1. The Left was expected to do badly in both WB and Kerala and rather than worrying abt that they were more focussed on the 3rd front. 2. Laloo and Paswan thought they could bully the Congress in Bihar. They made a gamble thinking of post poll results and assumed the Congress would accept it. But they did not anticipate Rahul Gandhi into the equation. The Muslim vote got split between Congress and RJD/LJP combine and add the Nitish Kumar factor into it and a rout was expected. 3. SP lost the plot in UP.The Varun Gandhi factor which would have made SP stronger based on consolidation of Muslim votes was lost because of Kalyan-Singh and Azam Khan. Add the Rahu Gandhi factor to the equation and the Congress changed into a winnable party. BJP: Needs to get back in UP The BJP has been stuck in a rut and need to get back in UP. 1. Gujarat, Karnataka,MP, Bihar: The only way is down. These states have returned 2-3 favorable mandates for NDA and the only way ahead from here is either flat or down. 2. UP: They need to get back in UP. In 96, 98 and 99, the BJP had 50+ seats in UP and today they have 8. Their strength has now become their weakness and unless they get back in UP they will be a sub-150 seat party. 3. No presence in 25% of seats - TN, Kerala, AP and WB contribute 140 seats, approx, 25% and the BJP either needs to get a presence here or make firmer pre-poll alliances. At the moment their only strategy for these states is that the Congress must perform poorly. Congress: The clear winner. The obvious winner of 2009.But lurking behind the victory there are a few pitfalls. 1. Arrogance: The Congress is putting away allies. The UPA is dependent on 2 key allies - Mamta and DMK. Even if one of these allies gives away, the Congress is in trouble. Mamta looks safe atleast till 2011. The Tamil issue can play a major role for DMK support as the DMK being a key ally, the TN voters might expect DMK to play a more proactive role in the situation in Lanka. RJD and SP might want to support it now. But if the Congress doesn't handle it carefully they might not come back. After the drubbing of the allies in 2009 and the lesson from it, the others like BJD, TDP, Left might not want to support the Congress. 2. Reaching the wrong conclusion: Rahul Gandhi is good news for the longer term but apart from UP did not have much of an impact in the other states. The verdict was state based and for Rahul to be able to make a national impact he needs time to build the organisation. 3. The voter has rewarded the Congress and he expects to be rewarded back. If the Congress does not deliver, he might not be so generous the next time, Rahul Gandhi included.

[ViruRulez]

Meanwhile Advani is expected to resign andj the main names doing the rounds for BJP's leader of opposition according to news channels are: 1) Sushma Swaraj 2) Jaswant Singh 3) Murli Manohar Joshi and 4) Rajnath Singh But it is supposed that Sushma Swaraj might become the leader of the opposition as she is younger and is good in both Hindi and English for giving speeches. Rajnath Singh does not know English properly while Jaswant Singh and Joshi are more than 70 years old. So, Sushma Swaraj seems to be the leader of the opposition now. But I dont understand why Arun Jaitley is not one of the contenders for the leader of the opposition. At least he is a lot better than Rajnath Singh. Anyways Sushma Swaraj seems to be a good choice too if that happens. He has got a lot of acceptability amongst people and hopefully she will be ideal candidate against Rahul Gandhi in 2014.

[Lurker]

Republicans on the other hand are not just some religious nutbags as you make them seem. They fight for limited government, individual responsibility, individual liberty & freedom. America is perhaps the only nation where people vote based on principles - conservatism vs. liberalism. Americans generally HATE government involvement in any aspect of their lives... The only thing that changes is on what particular aspects the government should involve in. (health care etc.)

I will let KR dissect your post in detail but two things real quick. a) You are confusing Republicanism with Conservatism. Unless you are living in 1984 that is not the case today. Republicans are jumping over each other to prove why they are Conservative and not Republicans these days. b) All those issues you mention - responsibility, liberty yada yada - will win you a big fat jack in Republican stronghold (read South). To win South you need two G's - Guns and God. Nobody gives a toss about freedom of speech in TN, but freedom of guns? Of course they do. Nobody cares about spending in Missauri but Abortion? Of course they do. Unless you think Republican South follows Barry Goldwater and not Limbaugh these days I am afraid you are dead wrong. xxx

[Lurker]

^^ And now you have confused Indian election with United States election. Again, conservatism and republicanism is NOT the one and the same thing. It used to be in the era which coincided with the golden years of Republican party. Today it is not. It is about Guns and God and less about spending and liberty. KR obviously is comparing the party of today and not 1984. You somehow give the feeling of living in 1980s. xxx

[Lurker]

I know this for a fact because there are several small-business entrepreneurs (from states such as Florida etc.) who vote republican not because of God and Guns but because of the general business-friendly policies of the republican party and because they prefer limited-government. And then there are several upper-middle class people who vote for republicans because of lower taxes that republicans support.

Florida is NOT your classical South. It is comprised mostly of elderly retirees who have moved from all over. Hence it is a swing state. When you mention Republican strongold you mention TX and TN not FL.

Go to your local small-business network group. If at least 90% of the people aren't republican and libertarian voters, I'll concede defeat in this argument. Similarly, go ask them if they listen to Rush Limbaugh, and see them laugh. The important thing is there are millions of millionaires in US and 50-80 million or so households who make over 100k+, guess who they vote and why they vote. Rush Limbaugh's audience (10+/- million) pales in comparison to this demographic who do not belong to the religious right (socially conservative)

Small business network groups are definitely more Republican driven. The reason is tax issues on which Republicans are closer to the business network than Democrats (incidentally this is no different in India where business groups support BJP more than they support Congress). Now the issue you are confusing is the demographic numbers. The followers of Rush Limbaugh will anyday outscore millionaire (I think you went hyperbole with million of millioinaire statement). Also Rush's followers are often Rednecks. Say what you will about Rednecks but there is a good chance that a redneck will go vote ahead of a millionaire. The entire argument was that BJP is similar to Republicans in the sense its majority voice is lost under the loudmouths of Coulter, Ingram and Limbaugh. Cant see anything wrong with that. xxx

[Jasoos]

Strong presence yes but the party is still very much in nascent stage in the 2 states. I wouldnt read too much into their debacle in these states really. I was checking the result of Maharastra. Turns out BJP lost even in Nagpur, the HQ of RSS. Turns out there is no good news for them this summer. xxx

Nagpur has never been a BJP stronghold. The BJP has only won once from Nagpur in 1996. The Indian democracy and all these cries about the greatest democracy is nothing but a farce. Indian politics is anarchic and feudalistic in nature as shown by the Gundi family. They have, they are and they will keep on ruining India. Lets all wait for the next elections when Kasab and Afzal Guru will the Congress candidates in order to appease the muslims.

[Jasoos]

Small business network groups are definitely more Republican driven. The reason is tax issues on which Republicans are closer to the business network than Democrats (incidentally this is no different in India where business groups support BJP more than they support Congress). xxx

hahahah typical ghatoya middle class mentality. naukar ke naukar hi rahoge tum.

[chanakya]

If you think this is a mandate for Singh/Congress. then you are grossly uninformed. Look at each state where Congress has won. It's mostly a 3-pronged or 4-pronged race. Congress has benefitted mostly by the number of parties fielding candidates and her vote base is still the same.

congress vote share rose by 4% while bjp decreased by 4%. In the other stated like WB it was actually the same. Las time round when TMC and INC were against each other and BJP CPIM got elected because they the votes got divided among TMC, INC and BJP this time the votes did not split and UPA prospered