Time for Republican Reset?

[Raz]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

Let me introduce data into this discussion, because I find it more useful than conjecture and general analysis:

Obama won the following groups:

93% of African American voters.
74% of Religious, non-Christian voters.
73% of Asian/Pacific Islander voters.
71% of Hispanic voters.
70% of Atheist/Agnostic voters.
69% of Jewish voters.
62% of Unmarried voters.
58% of Female voters.
53% of those making under $100,000.
52% of 18-50 year old voters.
51% of Catholic voters.

Romney won the following groups:

78% of Mormon voters.
59% of White voters.
57% of Protestant voters.
57% of Married voters.
53% of 51+ voters.
50% of Male voters.
50% of those making $100,000 or more.


Look at the numbers above. In the end of the day, Mr. Romney barely took a majority of his big blocs. That is, the 64% the electorate that are white voters, 62% of the electorate that are married, 53% the electorate that are protestant voters, and 49% the electorate that are male voters. Those were his big blocs. The blocs of older folk, Mormons, and wealthier folks are not quite as big. Only Mormons did he win by an overwhelming margin.

In the end of the day, if you're going to look at this, the story isn't as simple as Republicans need to reach out to Hispanics and women better, although it would not hurt.

The story is, more simply, that Mr. Romney was not a very good candidate.

He did not do well convincing even the groups that he carried that he should be president by any substantial margin, with the notable exception of Mormons, who vote overwhelmingly Republican anyways. And he narrowly lost the Catholic vote, which Republicans carried in the past few presidential elections. Hispanics are still a minority of that bloc.

Were it Mr. Christie instead of Mr. Romney, and were Mr. Christie to have carried the same percentages of the hispanic and female vote as Mr. Romney, my guess is that this could have turned out differently. Mr. Christie's likability numbers at the Republican convention were 10 points higher among Republicans and the general electorate alike.

Mr. Romney was just not very likable and not very trustable. At least that's what the polls show.

In the end, I would venture to guess that the vote was the measure of the man, not a sweeping ideological statement. Although, perhaps were his policies different or more specific, he would have put himself over the top. Mr. Romney's worst policy positions were suggesting a hard line with Iran (less than 30% support), suggesting Medicare vouchers (less than 30% support), and suggesting not increasing taxes on upper income earners (less than 40% support). Now he backed off these positions during the general election, but the damage may have been done. Regardless, they were risky policy positions to stake out, considering there is broad public antipathy towards them.

But my main point is that were 3-4% more married, white, protestant voters convinced to vote for Mr. Romney, he would have won.

But in the end of the day, Obama carried 40%+ of just about every identity group beside Mormons. That means that the electorate at large just really didn't like Mr. Romney as much as Mr. Obama. That's all.

Reading too much more into this is a mistake.

It's a mistake for liberals and conservatives alike.

A Mitt Romney that was less confrontational about Iran, that did not advocate Medicare vouchers, and that advocated a return to 39% tax rates for the top bracket may have won despite the public's perceptions of his low likability and trustworthiness.

Another candidate who advocated the same policy positions, but was more likable and trustworthy than Mitt Romney in the public's eye could have won as well.

But the combination of unpopular policy and lack of likability/trustworthiness wasn't up to defeating Barack Obama.

That's all.

+1.

If the Republican Party has a future they will listen to Paleoconservatives and get off the empire, nation building, "war on terror" bumber sticker crapola. They will realize that there's no such thing as free trade, and they'll get over the idea that tax cuts can cure every economic ailment, even cancer. They can listen to the ideas of men like John Huntsman and Rand Paul or they will go the way of the Whigs.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

Plenty of people could have beaten Obama, but I doubt they could have been nominated.

Perry, Bachman, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Trump. That group says a lot. Fox News in the end may be coming back to haunt the Republican party.

Read Frank Rich, then read the comments. The whole country needs a reset.

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-denial-2012-11/

[Raz]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

Plenty of people could have beaten Obama, but I doubt they could have been nominated.

Perry, Bachman, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Trump. That group says a lot. Fox News in the end may be coming back to haunt the Republican party.

Read Frank Rich, then read the comments. The whole country needs a reset.

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-denial-2012-11/

I mean no disrespect, Thailandnotes, but I stopped reading Frank Rich years ago and don't intend to start again.

The man is a liar.

[Penguin]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

I've witnessed this first hand don and it is kind of unsettling to hear it. I keep trying to tell some of these folks that there are good people spread across the spectrum and they need to be a little more circumspect... you can probably guess how much success I've had.

Call me naive if you wish, but I have a different world view. I have yet to see one single party break out when a factory closes and the employees are put out of work. I've yet to see one single newly unemployed person celebrating his freedom from the daily grind. I honestly believe that most people would rather work than draw unemployment or food stamps.

I don't give the Democratic party a pass on this either. They have went right along with the financialization of our economy and the offshoring of every job they can lay hands on. There isn't a free trade agreement made that won't pick up a good half of the democratic contingent of congress. But there isn't one yet that won't get 90% plus of the republican contingent. It remains to be seen whether either party has what it takes to make an effort to cut off the slice of the electorate that believes in our system but disagrees with the globalization of trade.

I say this only as a lead in to this: The Republican party, if you'll allow an independent to say, is going to have to move beyond identity politics if they wish to stay relevant on a national scale.

If they continue to play identity politics then they will lose and lose often and big. The Democratic party has them trumped on identity politics and the gap will grow over time. They have to move beyond this. A good start would be to shed the insanity of Rand and the hypocrisy of the libertarians who have fostered the demise of America's industrial might with their insistence that unfettered trade with those who game the monetary and trade rules. It used to be the Republican party was proud that our system produced a higher standard of living than any other. Now they cannot destroy our industrial and tax base quickly enough to suit them. They are going to have to turn their eyes inward and stop using trade as a means to destroy those who they disagree with politically.

At least that is my reasoning and I could be dead wrong. But when you're faced with a situation like they face it would seem wise to me that the wise thing to do would be to start following a philosophy that encourages individuals to once again look at themselves as a worker instead of a white/black/latino/gay/evangelical/whatever-American. But to make that work they have to stop supporting every policy possible that undercuts these folks economically.

I would look at this as an opportunity not a doomsday event. Conservatism needs a rewrite anyway. Right now it is saddled with inane myths and costly baggage that it has no business carrying around anyway. The real problem is that you have a lot of loud mouthed self righteous blowhards who are going to have to be thrown out of the boat. The backbone of the Republican version of identity politics is among their most ardent and will fight this every step of the way.

Will

[don]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

It used to be the Republican party was proud that our system produced a higher standard of living than any other.

Conservatism needs a rewrite anyway. Right now it is saddled with inane myths and costly baggage that it has no business carrying around anyway.

I sincerely wish we had the Republican Party I once was a member of. The Paleo-conservatives, to quote Raz.

[LorenS]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

After the stock market bubble, after the mortgage/finance bubble in the middle of a huge recession the Republicans put up a East Coast "moderate" with huge ties to the finance industry.

The Republicans are 1/2 right. The country is filled with a bunch of freeloaders. The problem is that a significant fraction of those folks are ensconced in CEO positions and sitting on corporate boards or buried deep into the middle management of major corporations.

Morality does not cease to exist once you've made your first million.

Don't get me wrong, the Democrats coddle their share of freeloading slackers too and the American middle class is rife with them too. The Democrats are just better at making popular promises.



I don't watch Fox news. I was not happy with the Romney nomination, but I did think that an East Coast Liberal might have had a chance. His flip flops and Bain Capital connection clearly cost him a lot of votes.

[Penguin]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

I agree with what you've said Loren. And I concur with you don in that a paleoconservative party would be a big improvement.

I just with someone, anyone, would start standing up for those of us who want to have a normal, balanced US economy. It seems incredible to me that such a huge swath of the electorate, and one with crosses so many ethnic, racial, and gender lines, can continue to be completely ignored but the political process.

A long time ago I read a sci-fi trilogy, Red Mars. Set in the future 50 years or so, there was a lot of very interesting environmental and economic issues put forth. One that really grabbed me was the upcoming war between sovereign nations and multi-national corporations. Sadly I have to look back at these books as almost prophetic. It is almost like we have two political parties that just cannot be bothered with menial worries of the unwashed masses who wish to have a decent JOB and some security. Not handouts, just an opportunity to work and contribute.

Like the response to the economic debacle, I have to admit that the real events in response to the wildly out of balance US economy have surpassed my wildest imagination... and in a very bad way. I've never really considered myself an optimist but I am beginning to wonder if maybe I'm not one of them.

Will

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

White liberals should enjoy themselves now, while they can. This is their heydey, their glory days. Their project to import enough non-whites to vote themselves into power worked. And the flood of non-whites should increase from this point as immigration amnesties - de jure or de facto - are passed, solidifying their grip. The demographics are all in their favor and there is nothing apparent that is going to change that. Gloat away, enjoy yourselves - this is as good as it gets.

From here on out, give or take a decade or so, it is going to be awakening process for white liberals as they begin to realize what they've done.

White liberals who are big on environmentalism and climate change will find out that a non-white-run America doesn't give a damn about the spotted owl or carbon emissions, except to the extent that they give them another excuse to tax "angry rich white men". Non-white countries around the world have horrible environmental records.

White liberal women whose main concern is that they be able to abort inconvenient babies and have sex without consequences, relying on the government for support instead of fathers or husbands, will learn that the hardships of living as a white woman or girl in a non-white country far outweigh the benefits of "free" birth control. Trying to raise white children safely in a non-white city and non-white school and get them a competitive education will be very difficult.

Those whites who are "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" and thus voted against social conservatives will discover it becomes very difficult for a white man to prosper honestly in a non-white, socialist country. Ask white South Africans, living in fear behind cement walls topped with glass shards and barbed wire, how the promised post-apartheid Shangri-La is working out for them, now that it is illegal for a white-owned South African company to do business with the South African government. Not to mention that 98% of the murders of whites go unsolved.

Those whites who think that what we need is more high-functioning immigrants, regardless of their race, are going to discover that a non-white country doesn't attract high-functioning people. The Chinese and Indians who moved here did so because it was a white country built and run by white men. Whites are going to learn that it is only whites who look past race, and that the high-functioning Indians, Chinese, and others who they encourage to move here have no intention of assimilating into a brown/black country, but rather intend to colonize increasingly larger portions of it with their own people and to control through corruption those who are not their co-ethnics.

In short, white liberals have been assuming that what they could get by importing millions of non-whites was a version of European socialism. But America will no longer be European. We're not Scandinavia, filled 99% by the whitest white people on earth. No, what they will get is Hugo Chavez socialism, corrupt brown socialism where whites are tolerated only to the extent that they are useful milk cows and are scapegoated for every problem even as their proportion of the population and their power dwindles.

To those who think the answer for Republicans is to embrace amnesty and win favor with Hispanics: after the 1986 amnesty that gave 3 million Mexican illegals U.S. citizenship, a smaller percentage of Hispanics voted for the Republican candidate in the next presidential election (30%) than voted for the Republican in the election before the amnesty (37%). Besides, why should Hispanics vote for the imitation, grudging amnesty-supporters (Republicans) when they can vote for the original, hardline amnesty-pushers (Democrats)?

Besides, 73% of Asians voted Democratic. This is the "model minority" who don't use welfare, have stronger "family values" than Hispanics, and work diligently. If the Republicans can't get the votes of Asians, how in the world are they going to get the votes of welfare-using, high-school-dropout Hispanics?

No, the common theme with the strong Democratic vote among Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and single women is that these groups have only one thing in common: they want to take away the control of the country from white men and then lord it over them. And they've succeeded.

They, and well-meaning white liberals, should enjoy their triumph while they can. In a few decades, it's going to be apparent that the reason that America was worth trying to sneak into and worth trying to take over was because it was a European country founded, built, and run by white men. When that is no longer the case, it's going to be just another failing brown Third-World craphole, which test scores show we're already solidly moving towards.

For me, this was the last election I will vote in under this government, except perhaps for strictly local races like mayoral elections. I know that sounds histrionic, but since there is mathematically no possibility of my people (white conservative men and their families) winning, my participation only validates the results of what will become increasingly lopsided, increasingly far-left and anti-white election victories. I say step back, let the Left have the government and let them bring on their socialism and race-replacement as quickly as possible. Only if it happens quickly will it wake up a critical mass of white men to the need for a separate country for ourselves and our families.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

... I know that sounds histrionic....

Yes, it does sound histrionic, very much so.
Perhaps a 2 week vacation from the internet and television would bring your spirits back up.

[flintlock]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

Let me introduce data into this discussion, because I find it more useful than conjecture and general analysis:

Obama won the following groups:

93% of African American voters.
74% of Religious, non-Christian voters.
73% of Asian/Pacific Islander voters.
71% of Hispanic voters.
70% of Atheist/Agnostic voters.
69% of Jewish voters.
62% of Unmarried voters.
58% of Female voters.
53% of those making under $100,000.
52% of 18-50 year old voters.
51% of Catholic voters.

Romney won the following groups:

78% of Mormon voters.
59% of White voters.
57% of Protestant voters.
57% of Married voters.
53% of 51+ voters.
50% of Male voters.
50% of those making $100,000 or more.


Look at the numbers above. In the end of the day, Mr. Romney barely took a majority of his big blocs. That is, the 64% the electorate that are white voters, 62% of the electorate that are married, 53% the electorate that are protestant voters, and 49% the electorate that are male voters. Those were his big blocs. The blocs of older folk, Mormons, and wealthier folks are not quite as big. Only Mormons did he win by an overwhelming margin.

In the end of the day, if you're going to look at this, the story isn't as simple as Republicans need to reach out to Hispanics and women better, although it would not hurt.

The story is, more simply, that Mr. Romney was not a very good candidate.

He did not do well convincing even the groups that he carried that he should be president by any substantial margin, with the notable exception of Mormons, who vote overwhelmingly Republican anyways. And he narrowly lost the Catholic vote, which Republicans carried in the past few presidential elections. Hispanics are still a minority of that bloc.

Were it Mr. Christie instead of Mr. Romney, and were Mr. Christie to have carried the same percentages of the hispanic and female vote as Mr. Romney, my guess is that this could have turned out differently. Mr. Christie's likability numbers at the Republican convention were 10 points higher among Republicans and the general electorate alike.

Mr. Romney was just not very likable and not very trustable. At least that's what the polls show.

In the end, I would venture to guess that the vote was the measure of the man, not a sweeping ideological statement. Although, perhaps were his policies different or more specific, he would have put himself over the top. Mr. Romney's worst policy positions were suggesting a hard line with Iran (less than 30% support), suggesting Medicare vouchers (less than 30% support), and suggesting not increasing taxes on upper income earners (less than 40% support). Now he backed off these positions during the general election, but the damage may have been done. Regardless, they were risky policy positions to stake out, considering there is broad public antipathy towards them.

But my main point is that were 3-4% more married, white, protestant voters convinced to vote for Mr. Romney, he would have won.

But in the end of the day, Obama carried 40%+ of just about every identity group beside Mormons. That means that the electorate at large just really didn't like Mr. Romney as much as Mr. Obama. That's all.

Reading too much more into this is a mistake.

It's a mistake for liberals and conservatives alike.

A Mitt Romney that was less confrontational about Iran, that did not advocate Medicare vouchers, and that advocated a return to 39% tax rates for the top bracket may have won despite the public's perceptions of his low likability and trustworthiness.

Another candidate who advocated the same policy positions, but was more likable and trustworthy than Mitt Romney in the public's eye could have won as well.

But the combination of unpopular policy and lack of likability/trustworthiness wasn't up to defeating Barack Obama.

That's all.

Could not have said it better. Regardless of what we want to believe, its still like a high school popularity contest for a lot of voters. Quite a few cannot even articulate what issues make them vote for a candidate. Looks, personality, charm, and simple likeability. All big factors for enough voters to sway any close election. With Romney its was his blue blood background and Bane Capital history working against him. Not a good fit with so many Americans hurting right now. Republicans could benefit from better party leadership in identifying what characteristics they need in a candidate. The primary process for republicans seems to leave them with the worst possible candidate. Cant help but wonder how Herman Cain would have fared.

[flintlock]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

I do find FOX biased, but Neal Boortz discussed this one day on his show and ran down a list of examples how they do attempt to show the other side. Wish I could find it. It depends on what show is on. Fox and Friends? They dont even pretend they are not biased. But others are certainly less so. They are certainly no worse than MSNBC!

[unlucky]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

Could not have said it better. Regardless of what we want to believe, its still like a high school popularity contest for a lot of voters. Quite a few cannot even articulate what issues make them vote for a candidate. Looks, personality, charm, and simple likeability. All big factors for enough voters to sway any close election. With Romney its was his blue blood background and Bane Capital history working against him. Not a good fit with so many Americans hurting right now. Republicans could benefit from better party leadership in identifying what characteristics they need in a candidate. The primary process for republicans seems to leave them with the worst possible candidate. Cant help but wonder how Herman Cain would have fared.

Romney came surprisingly close when you consider how weak a candidate he was. With a strong candidate, the Republicans could have won this contest. But none of the heavy hitters being mentioned now (Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, etc) even put themselves forward during the primaries. Is it fair to conclude that the Republican party lost due to lack of effort and conviction? Perhaps too tied up in its own internal convulsions?

[lektrode]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

...Is it fair to conclude that the Republican party lost due to lack of effort and conviction? Perhaps too tied up in its own internal convulsions?

+1
that and forgetting about what its supposed to be: being The Party of NO (giving away the treasury to buy a few more votes of whatevah toenail sliver of the electorate that will listen to em, to cobble together a 50.1% margin of 'victory')

vs the party of GIVE IT AWAY, GIVE IT AWAY, GIVE IT AWAY NOW:

[flintlock]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

Romney came surprisingly close when you consider how weak a candidate he was. With a strong candidate, the Republicans could have won this contest. But none of the heavy hitters being mentioned now (Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, etc) even put themselves forward during the primaries. Is it fair to conclude that the Republican party lost due to lack of effort and conviction? Perhaps too tied up in its own internal convulsions?

Some of it has to do with how Republicans tear themselves to shreds in the primaries. Who would want to put themselves through that? A few good men are hard to find these days. Republicans need to define a platform first, then find a suitable candidate. Instead they let the candidate define the platform. Democrats are much better organized and focused on core issues. Republicans get side-tracked on polarizing issues that you will never win an election with.

[jmdpet]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

I haven't seen studies of this kind, but anecdotally I will note that Fox News is far less like an echo chamber than CNN and especially MSNBC. On their news segments and shows, Fox regularly shows a talking head saying stuff that appeals to liberals. Even if it's a 4:1 ratio like their new show The Five, they at least attempt to incorporate disparate views.

Where FOX loses credibility is the blurred line between paid republican campaign representative and FOX news contributor. Several frequent guests are paid by both FOX and a republican candidate or a PAC.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11...s-who-a/191014