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

[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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

No, the point is fears, however warranted, of voter fraud.

[paft.livejournal.com]

And the premise seems to be that black people, hispanics, and democrats are more likely to commit it.

Do you believe that?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I've seen nothing to suggest that premise, or anyone presenting it.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Then why is it black and hispanic neighborhoods that tend to be targeted by "voter fraud" measures?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I see no evidence to support that assertion. Assuming it is true, I'd also expect those neighoborhoods to be the most heavily populated, and thus the most likely to be a target of fraud.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: I see no evidence to support that assertion.

What would you accept as evidence, other than the demographic breakdown of the people most affected by this suppression?

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Like I said, no basis in reality.

[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.....