![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThere'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.
*
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.
*
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 22:16 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 22:36 (UTC)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
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 22:44 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 23:36 (UTC)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
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 01:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 01:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 01:50 (UTC)* Romney may not meet McCain's vote total, and we have significant decreases from 2004.
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 02:46 (UTC)And yet Obama's vote totals are less this year than last? How do we distinguish this assertion from the narrative republicans deploy to insure their policies are not to blame?
> Heck, Romney's GOTV program crashed on election day
True. But just how significant is GOTV? How do we test with, versus without GOTV efforts? In short, how do we prove the case?
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 02:52 (UTC)Yes. Overall turnout is down, and Obama lost with independents. That's why his share is lower, yet he made up for it with superior base GOTV.
True. But just how significant is GOTV? How do we test with, versus without GOTV efforts? In short, how do we prove the case?
Well, Romney, McCain, basically without. 2010, Walker recall, 2004 Bush, basically with.
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 08:04 (UTC)But how do we know this has anything to do with a specific Obama campaign lead GOTV effort? I could just as easily say that it was voter anger at obvious Republican suppression efforts, or Voter anger at other specific republican behaviors. Prove your case.
> Well, Romney, McCain, basically without. 2010, Walker recall, 2004 Bush, basically with.
None of these can establish any causative link. There is no reason to suppose that the Walker recall is connected to general party partisanship. Many of the same people who voted for Obama may have not voted for the recall, because they have a specific feeling about when recalls are appropriate and when they are a waste of time (in the same way that people might agree with the sentiment of an amendment, but don't agree that the content should be part of an amendment)
And Bush 2004? Are you saying that the only reason Kerry didn't win in 2004 was because he did not have Obama's GOTV recipe?
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 14:08 (UTC)We see the failures of the Romney GOTV and the successes of the Obama GOTV in the face of declining voter share. We see specifically who the Obama campaign targeted and those direct results. It's pretty cut and dry - "voter suppression" isn't cited in the exit polls.
None of these can establish any causative link. There is no reason to suppose that the Walker recall is connected to general party partisanship.
I think you're a little underinformed on the successes of the voter identification and GOTV initiatives regarding the Walker recall. You're correct to a point that there may not be overlap, but you're only providing theoreticals to counter the factual nature of the good versus bad campaigns we've seen over the last few cycles.
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 16:20 (UTC)Declining voter share would point to an inferior GOTV effort, all other things being equal. GOTV efforts must be interacting with other variables.
> It's pretty cut and dry - "voter suppression" isn't cited in the exit polls
Is Obama's GOTV effort sited in exit polls?
> but you're only providing theoreticals to counter the factual nature of the good versus bad campaigns
> we've seen over the last few cycles.
The presumption that Obama won over Romney because of his superior GOTV effort is also a 'theoretical.' It also happens to be a theoretical that specifically allows Conservatives to explain the election loss with minimal soul searching, and is thus, deeply convenient.
Republicans have now lost 5 out of 6 of the last 6 presidential popular votes, If this is always because of bad campaigning, then we have to ask ourselves, what is it about the Republican Presidential process since 1988 that inevitably leads to bad campaigns?
Nothing Gets Out The Vote like agreeing with one candidate more than the other. Obama's most powerful GOTV tool is having policies more popular than Republicans.
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 17:35 (UTC)Right. The other variable in this case being an overall decline in voter share.
Is Obama's GOTV effort sited in exit polls?
Not explicitly. You would think, however, that "racism" or some formulation of it would be cited as a reaosn to vote in a way certain targeted demographics are discovered/graphed/polled.
The presumption that Obama won over Romney because of his superior GOTV effort is also a 'theoretical.' It also happens to be a theoretical that specifically allows Conservatives to explain the election loss with minimal soul searching, and is thus, deeply convenient.
It may be theoretical, but you're also not offering anything concrete to dispute it. GOTV matters.
Republicans have now lost 5 out of 6 of the last 6 presidential popular votes, If this is always because of bad campaigning, then we have to ask ourselves, what is it about the Republican Presidential process since 1988 that inevitably leads to bad campaigns?
If we want to play that game, the Democrats have only won a majority of the popular vote twice in the last 30 years. What is it about the Democrats that doesn't resonate with a majority, right?
Nothing Gets Out The Vote like agreeing with one candidate more than the other. Obama's most powerful GOTV tool is having policies more popular than Republicans.
If that were true, you might have a point. But consider this exit:
(no subject)
Date: 13/11/12 04:02 (UTC)> What is it about the Democrats that doesn't resonate with a majority, right?
" Not obtaining a majority popular vote" is a bit more, shall we say, refined than "Loosing the popular vote.". there are third parties and "other" categories to consider. 5 out of 6 times some other guy got more votes than the republican. That 5 out of 6 goes back to Clinton, but that's not an artificial line, drawn by my cunning to pump my stats. Before Clinton, we're talking Reagan era Republicans (as bush Sr. rode his coat tails) . Now, how is Reagan era Republicanism different than the current era? There are probably lots of ways, but the most evident to me is the reliance on social conservatives as a ground force.
> But consider this exit:
Source please?
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 01:35 (UTC)