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

[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???

[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.

[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 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.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Only you Jeff can have the opponent beat you by AT LEAST 40 points with Hispanics
and have 90% of Blacks vote AGAINST your candidate

and you sit there and say "We dont have a problem with demographics"


The results speak for themselves. You do. Period.

But then again Math has been shown time and again to not be a Republican strong skill

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Again, if you have evidence that it's a demographic issue as opposed to a GOTV one, by all means present your case.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because blacks and women only vote Democrat, and they're all convenient hive minds.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

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

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's good to know.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Sell that narrative baby!

[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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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

Something that actually shows, independently, that there's a demographic issue at play that cannot be explained by other measures.

"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.

Assuming everyone votes based on "dog whistles," of course.

[paft.livejournal.com]

paft: What would you accept as evidence that the GOP is experiencing a demographic problem?
bdj: Something that actually shows, independently, that there's a demographic issue at play that cannot be explained by other measures.

And an example of this would be....?

You actually won't accept anything. If you would you could offer an example.

Paft: "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.
bdl: Assuming everyone votes based on "dog whistles," of course.

Well racist dog whistles will certainly prompt minority voters and a significant number of non-racist, non minority voters to vote for the candidate who's not using them.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well racist dog whistles will certainly prompt minority voters and a significant number of non-racist, non minority voters to vote for the candidate who's not using them.

One would assume so, yes. The dog whistles, however, are only supposed to be heard by those it's intended for. And yet it's only the left who hears them. Strange, that...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm sure you think that. You have no evidence to show they are only heard by the Left, as you have no definition of Left, Right, Liberal, or Conservative. At least that's my opinion of why you can't seem to bother answering questions as to what these ideologies are, as opposed to what they are not.

[paft.livejournal.com]

You seem unclear on the definition of "dog whistle" in this context.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, I do. They're messages that can only be heard by those who would recognize them.

Think about it. Who's the only group hearing these "dog whistles?"

[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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So is it not equally a GOTV issue of sorts when certain groups prey on racial and/or racist fears to drum up the vote? If the left is better at raising the false idea that voter ID laws are racist and designed to disenfranchise than the right is at the opposite, is that an issue of demographics or something else?

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.

This is my general point, I agree.

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

The timing, rhetoric, and nature of the voter ID and early voter restriction laws made it very easy for Democrats to argue that they would disproportionally disenfranchise Black voters.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And it was dishonest to do so.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

It's dishonest to pretend otherwise. The GOP was blatantly trying to keep minorities from voting. Granted, it wasn't because of hatred of blacks or hispanics but because both these groups tend to vote Democratic. Besides if you've watched Fox News for even five minutes you can't complain about the left preying on racial fears. The GOP fires up these fears with no basis in reality, at least the left can demonstrate the disturbing attempts of the right to keep brown people from voting.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You do realize that Jim Crow was not, legally speaking, ever a matter of white people banning black votes? You see it was always ensuring that literate citizens able to provide IDs with some basic civics familiarity were voting, not to mention able to pay poll taxes. On paper. When it came to enforcing those laws, OTOH.....