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]

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?"

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

They're dog whistles. The dog hears them, but does not perk up and point to the whistler. That would betray the whistle.

The left points out the whistle to note that the whistles exist. The right merely reacts, but plays dumb when the fact of the whistles is raised.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The issue is that there are no dog whistles to be heard. It's just the left's hyper-obsession with painting the right as racist.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

You got the order wrong. The right-leaning aren't racist; the racists are right-leaning.

It's an important distinction.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Presumably if they're that obsessed with it and able to document it, the word might actually be applicable in some situations, right? Or is simply using the word more offensive than the sentiment it contains, namely in ideas such as Obama being a Kenyan Muslim out to destroy the United States of America for Comrade Mao-Hitler BinLaden Seacrest?

[paft.livejournal.com]

The people they are meant for on the right, and liberals and minority members awake enough at the wheel to recognize them.

In short, pretty much every adult of normal intelligence. Dog whistles are not about inaudibility. They're about deniability. And your posts indicate how far some are willing to take denial.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The people they are meant for on the right, and liberals and minority members awake enough at the wheel to recognize them.

Or there aren't any actual dog whistles.

[paft.livejournal.com]

It's fascinating how disconnected from reality you're willing to pretend to be in order to avoid conceding a point.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

There's no point to concede. You cry wolf at supposed racism at every opportunity, and then get surprised when no one hears them except the left. I see nothing to concede here.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: There's no point to concede. You cry wolf at supposed racism at every opportunity, and then get surprised when no one hears them except the left. I see nothing to concede here.

If the Republican party embraces the willful ignorance you show here, it is doomed.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The people they're directed at?