So, Republicans -- What's the Next Step?

[paft.livejournal.com]

There's been some discussion here about the right wing response to the shocking, I tell you, SHOCKING re-election of President Obama and the over-the-top reaction we've been seeing. A lot of it has involved personal idiocies from Freeper vowing everything from cutting off disabled Obama supporting relatives from support (I kid you not) divorcing spouses, spitting on neighbors, moving into bunkers, etc.

And there have been some hints of payback from people actually in a position to hurt either Obama supporters or perceived Obama supporters. The CEO of the same coal company that forced employees to spend a day without pay listening to a Romney speech laid off over a hundred employees on November 9th after publicly reading an unctuous and insulting "prayer," and on Thursday a man claiming to be a business owner in Georgia called C-Span and boasted about cutting employee hours and laying off two people because of the election. “I tried to make sure the people I laid off voted for Obama,” he said.

The fact remains -- Obama won.

Attempts at limiting the franchise and making it hard to vote didn't help Republicans. It just pissed off a lot of voters to the point where they were willing to stand in line for seven hours to vote for a Democrat. Threatening to fire employees if Obama were re-elected didn't help Republicans. It just highlighted the insidious damage Citizens United has done to our political environment. Attacking blacks, women, gays, and hispanics didn't work. It just galvanized a large portion of black, gay, female, hispanic, etc. voters into fighting Republicans.

So my question is, Republicans, what's the next step?

A couple of weeks ago, Frank Rich wrote a piece in Salon about the fact that losing an election does not seem to make the Republicans reassess their extended march to the right. They just double down and march further to the right.

Is that what's going to happen, Republicans? Because I have to tell you, you've been marching to the right for so many years you're on the verge of stepping off one hell of an ideological cliff. Are you going to openly embrace the genteel racism of Charles Murray? Are you going to openly work to limit the vote only to people of a certain income level? Is the aim going to be disenfranchising large portions of the public and telling the rest, "vote for us or we'll fire you?"

Just curious.

*

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A couple of weeks ago, Frank Rich wrote a piece in Salon about the fact that losing an election does not seem to make the Republicans reassess their extended march to the right. They just double down and march further to the right.

2008: Moderate McCain nominated, Republicans lose.
2010: Conservatives run for office, Republicans win.
2012: Moderate Romney nominated, conservative House members up for reelection, Republicans lose presidency and retain most of the wins from 2010.

Please, continue to tell us more how our "march to the right" is hurting the party.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Really? I saw a bunch of extremist republicans go down in flames - the rape philosophers, Alan West, despite republican-friendly redistricting, Michelle Bachmann barely kept her seat.

But you know what? I encourage the doubling-down of the crowd that thinks more extremism is the way to go because that should lead to even more losses in 2014.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Really? I saw a bunch of extremist republicans go down in flames - the rape philosophers, Alan West, despite republican-friendly redistricting, Michelle Bachmann barely kept her seat.

I saw two go down because of circumstances (one due to stupidity about rape, one due to people being stupid about religion). Allan West and a handful of the House reps, sure. The House stayed Republican, most who won in 2010 stayed around.

"Extremism" certainly wasn't repudiated. Most don't consider what you're discussing as "extremism" anyway.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

people being stupid about religion

Women voted Mourdock down, and it isn't because they are "stupid about religion".

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

If rape apology isn't extremism I don't know what is frankly.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

If NOT for Re-districting, I'm reading Democrats would have actually re-taken the House if that had been the map of 2008

[moonchylde.livejournal.com]

Bingo. They had to shuffle lines around so they would still have a majority in those districts.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Your "march to the right" is hurting you because the voting demographics have changed dramatically. Black voters, in particular, are less easily discouraged from voting, in spite of all your efforts. Women and racial minorities aren't responding to racist and sexist dogwhistles the way a predominantly white, male voting bloc would.

So do tell, what's next? Is your party going to openly advocate cutting back on the franchise, limiting the vote only to citizens with a certain level of income? Do you think employers should start firing Obama supporters and only hiring people who agree politically with the boss? Are the white supremacist leanings of the current GOP going to go from covert to overt?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Your "march to the right" is hurting you because the voting demographics have changed dramatically. Black voters, in particular, are less easily discouraged from voting, in spite of all your efforts.

There's no evidence that the GOP are actually experiencing a demographic problem. It's talked about a lot, but nothing else supports it.

Women and racial minorities aren't responding to racist and sexist dogwhistles the way a predominantly white, male voting bloc would.

Perhaps, but it appears the only people hearing those dog whistles are the left.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Blacks and Latinos overwhelmingly voted for Obama...
by 40+ points approximately

and you say you dont have a demographic problem???

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Um, it seems like most of the Republicans I've seen on television believe they have a demographic problem.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: There's no evidence that the GOP are actually experiencing a demographic problem. It's talked about a lot, but nothing else supports it.

What would you accept as evidence that the GOP is experiencing a demographic problem?

bdj:Perhaps, but it appears the only people hearing those dog whistles are the left.

"The left" being defined as anyone who hears those dog whistles and is grossed out enough by them to vote for the Democratic candidate.

Which is apparently quite a lot of people.

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

I think that the GOP's core issues don't necessarily create a demographic problem but the way they express those ideas and some of the fringe elements serve to alienate non-whites.

For instance, the GOTV efforts aimed at Blacks were greatly aided by the Voter ID laws, which made many Blacks feel a moral imperative to vote because they felt like this was hearkening back to the pre-Civil Rights era when whites were able to use the legal system to effectively prevent Blacks from voting. Romney's extreme positions on immigration in the primaries made a lot of Hispanics afraid of him as president.

If the GOP can stick to the core issues of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and conservative social issues, they can attract minorities as long as they don't do other things to actively push them away.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Oh, okay. So what you're saying is that moderate Republicans don't win because they can't carry the political center in this country. If they want to salvage their hopes as a viable political party, they've got to pull right and inspire their hard core supporters to become more active and involved.

Do you think that the 2010 state elections, and their subsequent redistricting, had anything to do with Republican resilience in the most recent national election?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I'm reading if it hadnt been for the redistricting, we would be looking at a Democrat House as well from that election

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Obviously, that must all be spin.

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

It's a tricky thing. A conservative from a red state can afford to be as conservative as he wants to be. But if that person runs for President, he has to appeal to the swing states, which could flip either way. And if his positions differ too much, he's a flip-flopper. Just like how Romney had more liberal positions earlier in his career, but tried to be more of a conservative this year, and no one really trusted that they knew where he stood.

Don't leave off 2006, Republicans lose. In some ways, I think 2006 and 2008 were reactive against Bush, and 2010 was reactive against Obama/the dem majority in Congress due to the bailouts and Obamacare. 2012 maintained the status quo.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If Paul Ryan was at the top of the ticket, would he have done better or worse than Romney? I'm not saying outright victory - it's increasingly clear that the Obama GOTV plan is miles ahead of anything else the GOP is tossing around right now - but would he have been more competitive in places like Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida?

What if we move further - a Pawlenty, or a Rubio? Where does the line really end?

Romney suffered not because he "tried" to be more conservative, but because we all knew he wasn't one of us. He then basically stopped trying to appeal to us (many would argue that he never started). Combine that with the terrible campaign? No wonder he didn't earn the base.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Republican's made the tactical decision to run a candidate who was more moderate (comparatively) for reasons of electability.

Were they wrong?
Did their tactics backfire? If so, why were they so stupid?

Had the republicans nominated Santorum, or Perry, or Bachman, do you really think the numbers would have been different? I do, but I think the difference would have been a larger margin for Obama.

The decision to run Romney was not stupid, Monday quarterbacking aside. He was the best candidate in the field, with the best chance of winning versus Obama, after other moderats like Huntsman were eliminated so very, VERY quickly. Looking back, a moderate in 2008 was absolutely necessary given the horrendous damage to the brand for Republicans done by Bush and Iraq and the recession.

2010 is different, #1 because we are talking about local races rather than national ones, and #2 Republicans figured out a short term method to avoid institutional responsibility for 2008, and were thus able to capitalize on voter anger without being the target of it.

The bottom line is, extreme social conservatism can no longer ride the coat tails of fiscal conservatism. The Republican party needs to abrogate the deal with the devil it made with evangelicals in the 80's. Playing to that peanut gallery demeans and damages any candidate they want to put into a national race.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Were they wrong?
Did their tactics backfire? If so, why were they so stupid?

We've done the electability thing twice now. I think it's quite clear they were wrong, and that you can't rely on anti-incumbent resentment alone. We even got an inkling of that in 2010 w/the O'Donnell and Reid races.

Had the republicans nominated Santorum, or Perry, or Bachman, do you really think the numbers would have been different? I do, but I think the difference would have been a larger margin for Obama.

I think in all cases, it would have been different, yes. I don't think we would necessarily see any of them win - although Perry would have had the best shot of those three - but I do believe all three would have far exceeded Romney's overall vote total.

The bottom line is, extreme social conservatism can no longer ride the coat tails of fiscal conservatism.

This might be true. But we didn't see extreme social conservatism from the Republican presidential ticket. That's a key issue with this point of view. Someone like Santorum very likely would have turned out extra people against him for the people who he turned out in favor of him because of his social views, but we have to recognize the differences between Santorum and Romney, Santorum and Perry, etc.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's right there in the first and the third: guy picks idiot damn fool as Veep to appeal to the base, idiot damn fool torpedoes campaign by being themselves.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

The only reason the march rightward is working involves the media bending over backwards to portray the rightward march as centrist, if not practical, while portraying any left-leaning behavior as questionable at best.

A functional media would stop this nonsense in its tracks.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'd love the media you describe.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

"Moderate McCain"


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No.


Maybe moderate from your standpoint, but then even your hero Goldwater wouldn't be able to get the nod from todays GOP for being too 'moderate' vis a vis his stance on the theocratic wing of the party.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

and thus the circle of self-delusion continues...