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

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I've heard a lot of imaginary company lay-offs on the radio that turn out to just be butthurt conservatives. Or planned layoffs from prior to the elction. And if real ones want to deep-six their businesses because the White Guy didn't get in, good riddance to bad trash. And I hope they disqualify themselves from any government aid.

[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.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

Well, let's be honest here: Republicans have always been, as a group, incredibly vindictive against anyone they feel has "transgressed" or who doesn't agree with their positions. It's obvious when you look at how they treat people of color, LGBT people, women and other minorities. Or when you look at things like how they target people on welfare and try to turn the public against them (the sad part is, that's worked). It's even more obvious when you look at the targeted voter disenfranchisement they attempted this election. I wasn't surprised in the least to hear of Republicans laying off workers and otherwise pulling nasty, vindictive bullshit in the wake of Obama's reelection - there were messages going around that night and the next day for women and, particularly, people of color to stay indoors because angry Republicans might hurt or harass them, for fuck's sake.

So yeah, you say the Republicans are "on the verge of stepping off one hell of an ideological cliff." I'd argue they've already fallen, but they haven't figured it out yet. They run on a platform of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, and murder. It doesn't get much plainer than that.

[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.

[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?

[paft.livejournal.com]

No, that is not nearly on the same scale as firing people, and so it's irrelevant. Yes, there are assholes on both sides of the aisle. Nobody is denying that. It's the Republican side, however, which seems to have veered increasingly into a higher level of personal vindictiveness.

You obviously aren't old enough to remember the 2000 "election" because the Democrats most certainly DID behave differently. I heard no significant calls to "shun" relatives, neighbors, and friends who voted Republican, and I heard of no movement among Democratic bosses to fire Republican employees.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

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.

Citizens United had to do with not being able to suppress speech (in that case, a movie), political or otherwise, based around an arbitrary time frame around an election. That's a mighty long road to hoe if the claim is: "Corporate backed movie, ergo employees fired, QED" At least, it's not obvious to me. If it is to you, and you don't mind humoring my poor understanding, please illuminate further.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

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

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

[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

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Correct.

Given that OfA GOTV specifically targeted those blocs, it is not so smart to assume that it's a demographic issue when there are other reasons to explain it.

To put it another way, such a demographic issue would show up in more than simply a presidential election year.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

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

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

How about getting some presidential candidates that voters can take seriously, like a more popular version of Huntsman or Pawlenty? I think it hurt the party when the frontrunner for nominee was "anyone but Mitt" until he was the only choice left. Cain, Bachmann, Gingrich - each was a joke of a candidate, yet each was a frontrunner at one point or another during the nomination process. And let's not with Santorum, please. I don't think Rubio or Ryan will appeal to moderate voters (though I don't like them, so I could be biased). It won't be Boehner. The Republicans need a candidate who can compromise, who can work with people who don't agree with him or her, who is smart and educated and who doesn't put ideology above pragmatism.

Well actually, the frontrunner in 2016 will probably be Chris Christie, as long as Mitt's loss isn't blamed on him. Conservative from a blue region might just work.

I think the Republicans need to realize that while they might be appealing to specific demographics, their government needs to have room for all Americans. You can't just say, "They have welfare, so I won't worry about them." It was clear from Romney's comments during his campaign that he couldn't empathize with poor people, that he's never lived paycheck to paycheck, or wondered where his next meal was going to come from. On that scale, he's lived a limited life.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's good to know.

[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.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

SO it's not an issue because they were targetted!!?!? That makes NO SENSE.


IF YOUR PARTY didnt target those groups (*ahem* and you DIDNT), then you DO have a demographic problem.

And it's a little naive to believe they dont pay attention to policy... if you had just "targetted" them but have policies that dont support them, then thats not enough

[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.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

It's unclear what you call "to the right" in this context, but how do you explain the U.S. House results?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

IF YOUR PARTY didnt target those groups (*ahem* and you DIDNT), then you DO have a demographic problem.

That doesn't follow.

If the GOP targets those groups, they will win more of them. It's a statistical likelihood that they'd do better as a result of that effort. It's not a demographic problem that they didn't - that makes no sense.

And it's a little naive to believe they dont pay attention to policy... if you had just "targetted" them but have policies that dont support them, then thats not enough

There's one argument I've read that some of these groups simply like bigger government. If that's indeed the case - and I'd love to see some research on it - then the GOP will have that "demographic issue" not because they're becoming "old and white" but rather because they have an ideology they don't want. Plenty of other people - a plurality-to-majority, in fact - do, so the targeting would make sense.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I don't know if you caught David Frum on Morning Joe Friday morning, but he has new E-book out on why Romney lost the election. Frum goes to great statistical lengths to demonstrate the shrinking ability of the GOP to win votes over the last few cycles, Video won't embed, but you can watch it here. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/#49757420)

Republicans have been fleeced, exploited and lied to by a conservative entertainment complex...there are too many to name. Because the followers, the donors and the activists are so mistaken about the nature of the problems the country faces...just a simple question, and I went to Tea Party rallies and asked this question, have taxes gone up or down in recent years? They can't answer this question. He continues, " What happened to Mitt Romney: he was twisted into pretzels. And the people who put the cement shoes on Romney's feet are now blaming him for sinking."

Frum also really discounts the idea if Romney was a real conservative, he'd won the election. (http://i.imgur.com/bm0QA.png)

[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.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Republican state houses were in charge of the redistricting as a result of the 2010 elections, and the census. The districts were redrawn in such a way that favored Republican candidates. Had the 2008 districts been used, Democrats would have easily taken the House back. That's how you explain it.