Did Tsai need to resign DPP leadership and will she be back?

[fruitloop]

Tsai got 45% in a three horse race against the incumbent (OK, that means Blues got 55%). I think the odds were always against her. Apart from anything else, there are probably some voters who wouldn't vote for a woman (more than those who would vote for her because she is a woman). I didn't see much of the campaign so I don't really know, but she looked reasonably impressive to me. Certainly no disgrace.

Which means, do losers always resign? Not always. In Taiwan, Lian Chan didn't resign/leave the stage in 2000 and took over a year to go after 2004.

Elsewhere, it's not uncommon for American contenders to run more than once for the nomination, at least (not sure about if they get beaten in the actual election - please enlighten me). In the UK, it depends on the circumstances. In 1983, Michael Foot got a thumping, was seen as old and a loser. He was replaced by Kinnock with a long term project to reform the Labour Party, so when he made progress but still lost in 1987, he got another chance in 1992, after which he resigned. William Hague lost for the Conservatives in 2001 and went not because he lost but because he lost quite badly and was perceived as weird (the Conservative Party is more ruthless than the Labour Party). Michael Howard was always a stand in (also perceived as a bit weird), to be replaced by a new generation after 2005. Gordon Brown had been on the scene for 20 years, lost badly (in some senses) and was seen as weird.

Having said all that, leading the party and running for President seem to be more fluid in Taiwan. Perhaps it would not be surprising to see Tsai again in 4 years.

[Jonny]

Tsai Ing Wen stepped down right after her defeat. Any true leader would not give up. Why not stay as DPP leader and then keep going for the 2016 elections? Stepping down just like that just shows Tsai was just a push over. One loss and she's gone.

But what really gets me is how Ma Ying Jeou managed to keep office. For instance, the chairman of the ARATS came to Taiwan, and under Ma Ying Jeou's administration they removed the ROC flag at all the hotels he was at and every other place in Taiwan he's been to. That pissed alot of Taiwanese off. Not to mention that when Taiwan officials visit China, they don't remove the PRC flag for them. And yet Ma says nothing. Even at Taiwan universities, I read that under Ma's administration they are to remove the ROC flags for PRC students, whereas the PRC universities never remove the PRC flag for Taiwan students. Ma says nothing. Not to mention Ma's approval rating had dropped severely within the first 8 months of Ma taking office. Also I have seen youtube videos of massive protests against Ma for being to close to China. As well as under Ma, the police forces have been ordered to seize Taiwanese flags held by Taiwanese protesters during the ARATS chairman visit. As well as confronting those that would play Taiwanese patriotic music. I read before 2008 that Ma Ying Jeou would constantly criticize the CCP regime for it's human rights abuses and promised that if elected in 2008, he would diplomatically engage China in human rights talks and seek political pardons for political dissidents. After Ma Ying Jeou became President, he forgot what he promised. I am literally shocked that Ma Ying Jeou won a second term.

Do the Taiwanese truly care whether or not they are part of China? I bet just a few threats from China and Ma would've won by a larger result. The CCP might as well just reward Taiwan by pouring billions of dollars into the Taiwanese economy to help create jobs for Taiwanese in order to guarantee another KMT win in 2016. I even read a report on NTDTV that most Taiwanese are concerned about jobs. Not China. Meaning that if being a second Hong Kong would mean even just a little bit of economic improvement, they'll accept it.

But at the very least, the election was fair and within the guidelines of democracy, freedom, and liberty. The people of Taiwan have a choice to become another PRC SAR. Freedom is their right. If they make that request, then we all have to respect that. With that being said, I can see clearly that countries like the US would rather see that happen. According to reports, the US indirectly favored Ma. And after this last election, and even after the 2008 elections the US and China both breathed a sigh of relief. Which means that being incorporated into China in the long run is really the only choice the Taiwanese people have anyway. I was watching CCTV9 once in 2006 and in a dialogue, a Chinese scholar appeared on TV. He was known to have predicted the exact day and hour President Bush would publicly declare war on Iraq which included the 24 hour notice he gave of the invasion. This scholar who's name I can't remember also went on to say that Taiwan will be unified as a province of China. Taiwan SAR.

And it will happen.

[ChewDawg]

Apart from anything else, there are probably some voters who wouldn't vote for a woman (more than those who would vote for her because she is a woman). I didn't see much of the campaign so I don't really know, but she looked reasonably impressive to me. Certainly no disgrace.

Which means, do losers always resign? Not always. In Taiwan, Lian Chan didn't resign/leave the stage in 2000 and took over a year to go after 2004.

Elsewhere, it's not uncommon for American contenders to run more than once for the nomination, at least (not sure about if they get beaten in the actual election - please enlighten me). In the UK, it depends on the circumstances. In 1983, Michael Foot got a thumping, was seen as old and a loser. He was replaced by Kinnock with a long term project to reform the Labour Party, so when he made progress but still lost in 1987, he got another chance in 1992, after which he resigned. William Hague lost for the Conservatives in 2001 and went not because he lost but because he lost quite badly and was perceived as weird (the Conservative Party is more ruthless than the Labour Party). Michael Howard was always a stand in (also perceived as a bit weird), to be replaced by a new generation after 2005. Gordon Brown had been on the scene for 20 years, lost badly (in some senses) and was seen as weird.

Having said all that, leading the party and running for President seem to be more fluid in Taiwan. Perhaps it would not be surprising to see Tsai again in 4 years.

I think this result bodes poorly for the DPP. Tsai is the best they've got. She's erudite, internationally educated, and moderate on China/trade issues. Today there was talk of Su leading the party again. If they keep recycling old faces from the lawyer and 1979 incident generation, the elections to come will be even bigger losses.

[CraigTPE]

Tsai Ing Wen stepped down right after her defeat. Any true leader would not give up. Why not stay as DPP leader and then keep going for the 2016 elections? Stepping down just like that just shows Tsai was just a push over. One loss and she's gone.

This is normal in Asian culture. It's taking responsibility for the loss.

[fruitloop]

I think this result bodes poorly for the DPP. Tsai is the best they've got. She's erudite, internationally educated, and moderate on China/trade issues. Today there was talk of Su leading the party again. If they keep recycling old faces from the lawyer and 1979 incident generation, the elections to come will be even bigger losses.

Agreed. It's time for renewal. If she follows the 1979 generation's example, Tsai and her contemporaries (such as they are) will be with us until 2035 or so. I would think she's (should have) got a good 5 years or so in her though. Question is, is resigning just par for the course post election behaviour. I suspect so - not unreasonably. But I think it would be better if the leaders either stayed or went. But that is partly a difference between presidential systems and parliamentary ones - with presidential systems you have a fallow period for opposition parties in between elections whereas in parliamentary systems the leader of the opposition needs to be ready as alternative prime minister from day 1. Too bad no one told Ed Miliband.

This is normal in Asian culture. It's taking responsibility for the loss.

Yes. As opposed to bowing out - which is what it usually (though not always) is in the UK.

[shengou]

Do the Taiwanese truly care whether or not they are part of China? I bet just a few threats from China and Ma would've won by a larger result. The CCP might as well just reward Taiwan by pouring billions of dollars into the Taiwanese economy to help create jobs for Taiwanese in order to guarantee another KMT win in 2016. I even read a report on NTDTV that most Taiwanese are concerned about jobs. Not China. Meaning that if being a second Hong Kong would mean even just a little bit of economic improvement, they'll accept it.

But at the very least, the election was fair and within the guidelines of democracy, freedom, and liberty. The people of Taiwan have a choice to become another PRC SAR. Freedom is their right. If they make that request, then we all have to respect that.

I don't know how it is up north, but my facebook is filled with people writing comments and statuses talking about how they're worried he won't protect the independence of Taiwan. I'm in an area that was I believe 60% for Tsai, but it just seems like the whole China issue is big for them. Maybe in more moderate areas they don't care as much.

Also, I think it's horribly unfair that if 51 percent want to become SAR, the 40%+ who are highly against it have absolutely no say. That's a lot of people who get completely screwed over. I'll be honest too, I know that they have the right to vote, and it's definitely not my choice what happens, but it really disturbs me that the Waishengren are able to sway everything over to the KMT. I'm a huge idealist, and it is what it is, but the whole idea that they took everything from the Taiwanese, oppressed them for years, and are still able to suppress their voices, it's just really frustrating.

[Battery9]

I'm sure the first thing Ma did this morning was check his Facebook. He won't give that up.

[shengou]

I'm sure the first thing Ma did this morning was check his Facebook. He won't give that up.

Because that's what I was referring to when I responded to "Do Taiwanese truly care whether or not they are part of China?" Exactly. Yep.

[TainanCowboy]

This presents a goof opportunity for the DPP to clean out all the remains of the Ah Bian cronies.

If they can do this and present a group of solid, honest candidates with a true focus on politics that focus on what is best for the future of Taiwan, then this election will have beneficial results.

If its back to "business as usual"...the results will continue to be the same.

[headhonchoII]

Shengou, ma's position is no union, no independence as is most of the electorate.
I feel that timing is important, Ma has recovered from the lows of morakot and many Taiwanese feared more instability, basically most opted for some surety over the next 4 years. Fear of the unknown and with some justification from history.