Time for Republican Reset?

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

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

Who cares if Fox is biased? It is such a crime that there be ONE television network (and it's only cable) that favors the right? Must EVERYTHING favor the left? Get over yourselves, huh?

[lektrode]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

fox is mo more 'biased' than NBC/CBS/ABC - along with PBS.

its just that the bias is for the opposing POV, which is what gets the anti-fox crowd all up on their high horses.

its kinda like the fact that the House was controlled by the dems for 40years and that was never a problem, right?

at least in the ole daze of 'equal time', the big 3 had to allow for opposing editorial viewpoint - then they didnt have to
and what happened?

there was NO opposing POV - which led inexorably to the creation of some: hence fox became the #1, simply because of that alone - that and o'reilly is the consumate alternative POV:

A Personal Note to President Obama

By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, November 8, 2012

Dear Mr. President:

You must be tired. Please take some time off; you worked very hard to get reelected. As a loyal American, I want you in good health - and that means some rest and relaxation once in a while.

But when you ramp it up again, I hope you will consider some suggestions from a citizen who's a bit disappointed in your overall performance. Please understand that I am not looking at this from an ideological perspective, rather from a sports point-of-view.

I want American leadership to win the game. That means improving the economy, bolstering protection for the folks, and running an honest operation from the White House. At this point in history, that's what winning means to me.

Let's take the economy first. Apparently, you believe that massive government spending can create well-paying jobs in the private sector. But after four years and almost a trillion dollars of federal money being fed into the economic system, that has not worked. Unemployment is about the same as it was when you took over in 2009, and wages are down sharply.

You spent a ton of our money, Mr. President; we didn't even get a tee shirt.

Now, I know some of my fellow citizens see it differently, and voted for you believing your economic vision is working. But let's be honest, the voter breakdown clearly shows that folks receiving some kind of government largess supported you big time, while those avidly competing in the marketplace voted for Governor Romney.

It was no accident that the day after your victory the stock market plummeted 313 points.

So, I hope you'll rethink the big spending deal and begin to make it easier for small business people to make money. When they are flush, the job market surges. When they feel threatened, hiring shuts down.

I well understand that the "tax the rich" mantra got you some political currency. But we both know that strategy will do little to stimulate anything other than jealousy.

On the security front, may I suggest that you be a stand up guy. Please hold a press conference and tell the folks what you know about the Libyan terror attack and why things are such a mess. This "we're investigating" stuff is a ruse. Telling us what you know does not impede any investigation.

Dodging Libya hurt your honesty index. And that hurts the country. It is very important that the folks trust you - even if they don't like you. Take that from me. My television program has been top-rated for nearly 13 years, and it's not because I'm Dale Carnegie. Most Americans respect straightforward talk even if they are annoyed by it.

In closing, congratulations on your victory. You and your guy Axelrod designed a campaign that Romney's Boston boys could not match. But that's not what's important now. Fixing the economy is.

Do that and your legacy will be assured. Fail, and all hell will break loose.

---------

and a big +1 to that!

[santafe2]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

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.

It's good to see that modern racists are so inclusive. You did forget Native Americans. That is one group I'm fairly sure would like to "...take away the control...then lord it over [you]."

[Penguin]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

It's good to see that modern racists are so inclusive. You did forget Native Americans. That is one group I'm fairly sure would like to "...take away the control...then lord it over [you]."

Yeah, this a good example of some of that "costly baggage" I was speaking of in my first post.

I know that race relations are difficult. I know that every ethnic and racial group on the planet is biologically programmed to resort into an us versus them mentality when stressed. I know we have a painful history to deal with...

But still, I think we can do a lot better than this.

Will

[Prazak]

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.

Good review of the facts, DC. Two more facts: (i) Republican congressional candidates in several races underperformed Romney, which raises the question of whether the problem at the presidential level was confined to Romney's profile (make that plural: profiles) or whether there was a problem overall with the Republican "brand" this cycle; (ii) 7 million fewer voters voted for Obama this year than in 2008 and 2 million fewer voters voted for Romney this year than McCain in 2008 -- 9 million fewer voters in total than in 2008 -- which raises the question of whether there was a problem not only with the Republican brand but also with both parties.

With those facts in view it's hard to draw some of the sweeping conclusions that are being drawn across the political spectrum. Certainly Republicans need to stop alienating so many from the majority population in this country (women) and from its fastest growing minority (hispanics) -- regardless of Romney's obvious limitations as a candidate. But I'm not persuaded that the GOP faces a demographic or social doomsday clock and needs to reform -- whether that's being presented gleefully from the left as the triumph of "diversity" or petulantly from the right as the triumph of the "takers".

I think if Republicans had nominated someone with a more populist appeal (rather than plutocrat Romney), who led on a traditional, small-c conservative platform of downsizing government, especially reining in its national security apparatus (something that would appeal to a lot of social liberals, but which neither presidential candidate addressed at all), who adopted a more libertarian posture on social issues (and stopped pandering to the religious right), who embraced hard-working, tax-paying immigrants (immigration being existentially an entrepreneurial act), and combined that with the trust-busting ethic of the Rooseveltian Republicans at the turn of the last century, aimed in this century at the TBTF banking institutions, you could just as easily have seen a landslide Republican victory this cycle -- maybe even the blueprint for an enduring Republican-leaning coalition.

[llanlad2]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

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.

Unfortunately the views that you espouse tend to be associated with Republican Party supporters (eg shock jocks with extreme views like yours ) more so than Democrats. It is You and people like you have succeeded in alienating the above groups as much as the Democrats "won them over". When the Republican party can distance itself from extreme separatist views like your own only then may it become a more natural party for some members of the groups you mentioned. I sincerely hope this becomes the case otherwise those groups will continue voting Democrat in large numbers no matter how "wrong" a decision it may be economically.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

Unfortunately the views that you espouse tend to be associated with Republican Party supporters (eg shock jocks with extreme views like yours ) more so than Democrats. It is You and people like you have succeeded in alienating the above groups as much as the Democrats "won them over". When the Republican party can distance itself from extreme separatist views like your own only then may it become a more natural party for some members of the groups you mentioned. I sincerely hope this becomes the case otherwise those groups will continue voting Democrat in large numbers no matter how "wrong" a decision it may be economically.

I can understand WHAT he is saying, though I believe the delivery is quite poor.

when you find certain socio-economic groups also match up a a racial match, and those groups tend to be the sway in the elctions, and that those groups tend to also be the groups that are growing in population faster than the general (ie. "white") population, you are clearly looking at major power shifts. Does that mean it all works out as he sees it? Not necessarily but the trends does seem to be there.

BTW, you see the same thing playing out with Muslims throughout some of the EU countries and you see the same fears echoed.The far-right (and somewhat insane) radio talk show host Michael Savage does have it right when he says a country is defined by "language, borders, and culture". The US used to be an assimilation country, when people moved here and mostly learned english. Now the DMV has tests in like 23 different languages, and you can press 2 for spanish in nearly every recording. Our borders seem to be porous, and it is certainly hard to define what might be construed as a unifying "culture" across the 50 states.

There is not only a tremendous amount of self-segregation by race or color, but we are seeing this in political segregation where people cannot get along because of politics, and even in regional and interests segregation via meme's like "east coast liberal" or 'redneck nascar fans" or similar.

I don't know what is going to bring us all together as a nation again, but the continuing stratification does seem to be moving the way Mn-Mark sees it in my POV.

[jmdpet]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

Who cares if Fox is biased? It is such a crime that there be ONE television network (and it's only cable) that favors the right? Must EVERYTHING favor the left? Get over yourselves, huh?

I personally don't care that it's biased at all. I also don't disagree that MSNBC's programming (e.g.) has a liberal slant. I find it strange when people make
the argument that FOX news is the only neutral news source in an otherwise liberal media world or buy their "fair and balanced" tag line. I just don't see quite the blatant surrogates-as-news-contributors conflicts of interest on other news channel besides FOX news. Please correct me if I didn't look hard enough. Again, I don't care, just be open about it.

Whatever FOX is doing, there is market for it, as their ratings show. Although, it seems MSNBC is catching up by mimicking some of FOX' tactics. I do believe that the cozy relationship between the Romney campaign and FOX news contributed to group think and ultimately the Romney campaign and rich super PAC donors shell shocked by defeat.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

The man is a liar.

Liar seems a bit harsh. Partisan, sure.

The column I linked to is good at pointing out the growing intellectual nihilism. The comments are good at pointing out that this nihilism is by-partisan.

And what to make of Nate Silver, his track record and the trashing of it...

And yet, while “The Signal and the Noise” doesn’t chronicle Silver’s rise, it marks an important milestone in his ascent. For that reason, it could turn out to be one of the more momentous books of the decade. Journalism is in a strange place these days. Cable and the Internet crippled the old media establishment; political polarization dealt it a death blow. In the meantime, no new establishment has risen up to take its place. What we have is a growing sense of intellectual nihilism. The right-wing media speak only to true believers. Liberal journalists are often more fact-conscious but equally partisan, while mainstream outlets have a rapidly dwindling audience. Few media institutions command widespread credibility.

I think Silver — or at least Silver-ism — has the potential to fill the void. Silver uses statistics to scrutinize the claims of people who don’t always have an incentive to be accurate. Until now, he took aim mostly at sports pundits and political handicappers. But the book hints at his ambitions to take on weightier questions. There’s no better example of this than his chapter on climate change. In recent years, the most sophisticated global-warming skeptics have seized on errors in the forecasts of the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change (I.P.C.C.) in order to undermine efforts at greenhouse gas reduction. These skeptics note that global temperatures have increased at only about half the rate the I.P.C.C. predicted in 1990, and that they flatlined in the 2000s (albeit after rising sharply in the late ’90s).

Silver runs the numbers to show that the past few decades of data are still highly consistent with the hypothesis of man-made global warming. He shows how, at the rate that carbon dioxide is accumulating, a single decade of flat temperatures is hardly invalidating. On the other hand, Silver demonstrates that projecting temperature increases decades into the future is a dicey proposition. He chides some environmental activists for their certainty — observing that overambitious predictions can undermine a cause when they don’t come to pass — without descending into false equivalence.

What Silver is doing here is playing the role of public statistician — bringing simple but powerful empirical methods to bear on a controversial policy question, and making the results accessible to anyone with a high-school level of numeracy. The exercise is not so different in spirit from the way public intellectuals like John Kenneth Galbraith once shaped discussions of economic policy and public figures like Walter Cronkite helped sway opinion on the Vietnam War. Except that their authority was based to varying degrees on their establishment credentials, whereas Silver’s derives from his data savvy in the age of the stats nerd.

That Silver is taking this on is, by and large, a welcome development. Few journalists have the statistical chops; most scientists and social scientists are too abstruse. Though his approach doesn’t apply to every issue, it’s not hard to imagine Silver and his ilk one day letting the air out of an inflating housing bubble, or unmasking tobacco-company spin, by appealing to nothing but the numbers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/bo...pagewanted=all

[Ghent12]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

Good review of the facts, DC. Two more facts: (i) Republican congressional candidates in several races underperformed Romney, which raises the question of whether the problem at the presidential level was confined to Romney's profile (make that plural: profiles) or whether there was a problem overall with the Republican "brand" this cycle; (ii) 7 million fewer voters voted for Obama this year than in 2008 and 2 million fewer voters voted for Romney this year than McCain in 2008 -- 9 million fewer voters in total than in 2008 -- which raises the question of whether there was a problem not only with the Republican brand but also with both parties.

I think the drop in participation is more of a return to the normal trend. There were no "majorly historic candidates" this time around. You may see such a large turnout again if a woman is a nominee of either party, but in all reality, 20% of the population decides who is President. So long as the choices are always simply the shiniest of turds, nothing will change that. There will always be more people who can vote but don't than those who vote for the winning candidate. Why are there so few efforts to tap into that vast pool of people? I'm no political scientist, but something is fishy with our present system.

[santafe2]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

I can understand WHAT he is saying, though I believe the delivery is quite poor.

It's best if one does not attempt to finesse racism. Most will understand what is being said and should reject it.

When we espouse these views we validate those that will pit us one against the other. We are not the problem. When we are reduced to pointing fingers at each other, we lose.

Some of the folks at the top of the financial food chain have, throughout human history understood that average folks can be turned on each other. When we give in, we lose. Republicans are not different from Democrats, only less subtle. If any of us can say that one side is good and the other bad, we've been taken. Neither party cares if any of us survive and Europe is no different. Probably worse, they've had more time to perfect the ruse.

If you keep your eyes open you see that the difference between Katrina and Sandy is not an uncaring Republican administration and a Democratic administration that wants to help. My takeaway is that Republicans will pick your pocket and not apologize while Democrats will swear they are long lost family while they rifle your house for anything of value.

I despise racism, sexism, and generally divisive ideology. The rift makes room for those bastards at the top of the financial system to reach in and pick our pockets.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

Republicans to watch in 2016

CHRIS CHRISTIE
Though he defines himself as a conservative, the New Jersey governor is seen as a potential moderate with broad appeal. He was positive about Obama's performance during the Hurricane Sandy disaster and an early endorser of Mitt Romney in the nomination process
MARCO RUBIO
The Florida senator is regarded as one of the most potentially powerful future party leaders. His Hispanic background could broaden the base of the party and he is also a favourite with the conservative Tea Party movement.
JEB BUSH
The former Florida governor seems to tick all sorts of boxes. Popular in a key swing state, he is a moderate conservative who appeals to the party base, has a Hispanic wife and is fluent in Spanish. Only the residual problems of his surname could hamper him, but by 2016 that may not prove to be such an issue.
JIM DEMINT
The South Carolina senator is one of the party's most conservative leaders and is widely believed to have an eye on a 2016 run. Closely allied with the Tea Party, he is extremely socially conservative, once advocating not allowing gays or single mothers to teach in public schools.
RICK SANTORUM
The former Pennsylvania senator was an obscure figure in the lead-up to the 2012 campaign but won over a huge amount of the base with his spirited and extremely conservative challenge to Romney. He ended with more than enough status to try again in 2016, posing as a social conservative with appeal to the white working class.
PAUL RYAN
Romney's running mate performed well enough during the campaign to boost his reputation as one of the party's leading lights. He also appeals to the white working class and social conservatives. A devout Catholic, he does not look like a moderniser.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...-conservatives

Best guess for 2016?

It's time to think like an Oligarch...

Rubio (the Republican Obama) vs. the female Clinton

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

James Fallows interviewed by Moyers. If you can't swallow Moyers on the recent election, slide to the second half...mostly about China.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...rborne/265058/

http://billmoyers.com/segment/james-...s-second-term/

[Polish_Silver]

immigration reform?

First off, there was no massive 'mandate' in the re-election of Obama. this was no 'blowout'. The difference was a few million votes and that is NOT that big a difference,
.... immigration reofrm, .

What would the immigration reform look like?

I don't think immigration reform is possible without a national ID system. Properly done, it would not be much privacy sacrifice. (For example, my card would have some biometric data linking it to me, and the only data would be my citizenship or greencard status, not even my name.)

In China the ID's have RF chips. They can track dissidents who show up at meetings.

Some countries are allowing unlimited immigration of "upscale" immigrants.
Does immigration reform mean keeping some people out?

We could allow more temporary workers and screen/track them better. But that still bombs that part of the labor market.
I don't buy the idea that "americans don't want those jobs". Those jobs have the pay and working conditions they do because they can be filled with illegal immigrants.
Supply and demand.

Recent trade and technology changes are destroying the middle and low skill level jobs. So we should "conserve jobs" for citizens.

[flintlock]

Re: Time for Republican Reset?

I can understand WHAT he is saying, though I believe the delivery is quite poor.

when you find certain socio-economic groups also match up a a racial match, and those groups tend to be the sway in the elctions, and that those groups tend to also be the groups that are growing in population faster than the general (ie. "white") population, you are clearly looking at major power shifts. Does that mean it all works out as he sees it? Not necessarily but the trends does seem to be there.

BTW, you see the same thing playing out with Muslims throughout some of the EU countries and you see the same fears echoed.The far-right (and somewhat insane) radio talk show host Michael Savage does have it right when he says a country is defined by "language, borders, and culture". The US used to be an assimilation country, when people moved here and mostly learned english. Now the DMV has tests in like 23 different languages, and you can press 2 for spanish in nearly every recording. Our borders seem to be porous, and it is certainly hard to define what might be construed as a unifying "culture" across the 50 states.

There is not only a tremendous amount of self-segregation by race or color, but we are seeing this in political segregation where people cannot get along because of politics, and even in regional and interests segregation via meme's like "east coast liberal" or 'redneck nascar fans" or similar.

I don't know what is going to bring us all together as a nation again, but the continuing stratification does seem to be moving the way Mn-Mark sees it in my POV.

I tend to agree.

But its funny that despite how "enlightened" we think we are today in regards to race relations, they actually seem to be as bad as ever. They just are slathered in the fake icing of political correctness. But beneath the icing the cake is still as rancid as ever. People still vote along racial and cultural lines, and its only when things get tough does the thin veneer disappear and the ugly truth appear. Psst. I have a secret. Minorities are humans too. They have biases and display bigotry just like white folks. To think otherwise is just fooling yourself. Its not until we begin to quit thinking of ourselves first and foremost by race that this will improve. I see it already with my kids generation. My kids have good friends of all races and they actually feel comfortable enough with each other to make jokes about it. They aren't so self conscious about race that they go around with a chip on their shoulders. It just takes some time. Now if only the bastards who profit on racial tension will die off and let things continue to progress.