What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[Luveria]

This here, this is part of the problem republicans have. Somehow, people like you seem to think that African Americans do not vote based on the issues that affect them. Instead they vote for the black person. That comment right there is one of the most racist comments I have heard. The handout thing has already been debunked a number of times. Do you seriously think people will vote for Republicans when Republicans are saying you are all lazy bums who don't think, and then go on to make policy decisions that support that line of though?

I don't think 'all' black people vote for Obama because he's black, that's just part of the reason. I've heard plenty of black people say that they voted for Obama because he's Black and he's going to provide for them. infact, there are some black people that didn't even vote for Obama, but they're few and far between.

I'll just rip something from youtube that makes my point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSUEbdebWjY

YouTube does not prove your point. No one is going to watch that.

[Neutraligon]

So do white people vote for white candidates?

I admit, I've voted for white candidates in the past.

Because they were white?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I admit, I've voted for white candidates in the past.

Because they were white?

Of course not. That would be astoundingly stupid. But you didn't add that qualifier.

[Edlichbury]

Neither anecdotes nor a Youtube vid are sufficient enough data to suggest that black folks voted for Obama solely because he's black, so I have to ask:

Do you have any polling data or research to support that claim?

I honestly wonder if people think that black voters would have gone over to McCain if Hillary had been the nominee.

The general claim is true - blacks overwhelmingly voted Obama. The issue with his assertion is that it had little to do with his skin tone. It had everything to do with party politics and policies.

Since FDR, blacks have voted mostly Democratic. This is for a variety of reasons. Ike did fairly well, though not receiving a majority, mostly due to his more favorable record on Civil Rights. But Nixon's Southern Strategy really just reinforced the already existing breakdown of votes. Obama didn't even do outstanding by comparison to previous turnouts - his average is exactly tied with Johnson's and only a few points higher than in 84, 88, 00, and 04. Since 1964, Blacks voted at least 80% Democratic in every presidential election. So Obama's 93% in 2012 isn't in any way a significant change - only five points higher than 2004, and actually less than Johnson's 94% (and Obama's 2008 95%).

The simple fact is the skin tone had little to do with it - the Republicans lost the black vote in 1964 and haven't gotten it back since. And perhaps abandoning the exact strategy that prompted the shift would be the right start.

[Gauthier]

I don't think 'all' black people vote for Obama because he's black, that's just part of the reason. I've heard plenty of black people say that they voted for Obama because he's Black and he's going to provide for them. infact, there are some black people that didn't even vote for Obama, but they're few and far between.

I'll just rip something from youtube that makes my point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSUEbdebWjY

So do white people vote for white candidates?

Africans for Africans, Asians for Asians, White People for Everybody?

[Neutraligon]

So do white people vote for white candidates?

Africans for Africans, Asians for Asians, White People for Everybody?

Do not remind me...

[Alien Space Bats]

it is every bit as partisan as FOX

i mean i don't see how you can claim otherwise without being a flatout hardline liberal... and i thought you were a somewhat moderate liberal, ASB

Partisan? Yes.

Dishonest? No.

[Gauthier]

it is every bit as partisan as FOX

i mean i don't see how you can claim otherwise without being a flatout hardline liberal... and i thought you were a somewhat moderate liberal, ASB

Partisan? Yes.

Dishonest? No.

Just like Republicans believe minorities are lazy goodfornothings who expect to live on handouts, hipsters believe MSNBC to be the mirror image of FOXNews ignoring how MSNBC apologizes when they get caught on a factual error and never has it once made palm trees grow in Wisconsin.

[Alien Space Bats]

They're certainly not going to vote for a White person who doesn't give them "stuff." Isn't that what they really want, more government services and social programs instead of the conservative platform of lower taxes and rugged individualism?

Rugged individualism means very little in the dog-eat-dog environment of unfettered globalism.

Then, too, the Republican platform offers minorities no protection whatsoever from whatever harm whites want to heap upon minorities. So, again, why should minorities vote for a Party that offers them neither hope nor protection, but simply unrelenting torment?

[Maineiacs]

Partisan? Yes.

Dishonest? No.

Just like Republicans believe minorities are lazy goodfornothings who expect to live on handouts, hipsters believe MSNBC to be the mirror image of FOXNews ignoring how MSNBC apologizes when they get caught on a factual error and never has it once made palm trees grow in Wisconsin.

Huh? I missed that.

[Kavadevo]

I would say a moderate Tea Partier/libertarian conservative like Rand Paul or Justin Amash, who can make the GOP look like it stands for freedom, individuality (which is what this generation is about), and just the right to live your life, because the catchphrase of today's culture is really #yolo and it sums up the current cultural take on life. The youth make up a lot of the vote, and a lot of them just defect to the Dems because the media can make the GOP look misogynistic, racist, bigoted etc by quoting them on social issues. If the progressive, libertarian conservatives show that the party isn't full of moral majority congressmen, and for freedom to live your life, while attacking Obama for taking almost fascistic approaches to security, war, economics etc, then they'll do well I think. They also need good ad campaigns. But yeah. (This is from a foreign perspective btw)

Here's the thing, the well that is the libertarian voters is incredibly small, and tapping it is going to ward off much more lucrative demographics. I'm going to be using the Public Religion Research Institute's 2013 In Search for Libertarians in America report for most of this post, since it has some very well presented statistics.

First of all, one thing that is true of Libertarians is that they're incredibly white and incredibly male. (Page 1 of report) 94% of self reported libertarians are white. The issue here is that the GOP is very good at getting white people to vote for them. In 2012, 59% of white voters, as of October 28, said that they were going to vote for Mitt Romney. The substantial part about this is that no Republican presidential candidate has matched Romney's performance among whites since Bush Sr. mopped the floor with Mike Dukakis, back in 1988. No one's exceeded his performance among whites since Reagan demolished Walter Mondale in 1984. What this tells us is that, barring incredibly favorable circumstances, the white vote is maxed out at 59%.

Republicans are also very good at getting males to vote for them. 68% of self reported libertarians are male. (Page 1) Romney's performance among males in 2012 was 52%, which is about average, as 5 of the 8 elections since Reagan's first run matched Romney's performance. And then, only one resulted in the GOP netting more than 56% of the male vote. So in a similar vein, barring incredibly favorable circumstances, the male vote is maxed out at 56%.

In fact, the only thing that saves the libertarians from being tossed into the wind is that they're young and nonreligious. And given the relative size of the evangelical vote compared to the libertarian vote, that's a turnoff. So it makes no sense for the GOP to court the libertarian vote, given that they're already outperforming in the demographics that libertarians overwhelmingly are, and they lost terribly.

Of course, that means nothing when you take into account that most libertarians already vote Republican. 45% of libertarians vote for the GOP already, compared to 35% who are independent. (Page 12) The other 20% vote for either the Democrats or third parties. So not only does courting the libertarian vote not make sense demographically, it doesn't make sense politically.

No, a better solution is dropping the economic part of their platform. Embrace the social gospel. (Which Latinos correlate more with their faith than they do social conservatism) Try and reach out to Blacks, a much larger demographic than libertarians and a more religious demographic than whites. Not to mention, 90% of blacks vote for Democrats. It shouldn't be too hard to pull some of them away.

[Ashmoria]

The Republican Party has a tone and articulative issue, mostly. The vast majority of Americans are center-right but they've let the Democrats control the messaging. Conservatism is not on a death spiral, infact it's stronger than it ever was. The problem is messaging, We need to look no further than Ronald Reagan. If there was someone who could articulate Conservative principles who was willing to negotiate and be moderate, he would probably be elected by a landslide.

I think the reason most people are angry at Washington these days is because they can't get anything done, quite frankly the entire American political system is corrupt and ineffective. The American government, in my humble opinion, is a shame to all Americans.

I agree that they have a tone and articulation issue but the problem is that they keep telling the truth in a bald faced ugly manner. if they could clean up the way they talk about their very bad policies--like Ronald Reagan did-- they would have more success.

[Ashmoria]

That is, quite frankly, the most factually incorrect statement on the issues the GOP faces today that I've seen.....all week.

To put it simply, Messaging is not the issue when your policies are still shit.

Ronald Reagan was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and the GOP needs to wake up, smell the roses, and realize that they aren't getting another one or one similar to him.

I think it's too early to call for the death of the Republican Party. Most Americans i believe are center-right compared to say.. Europe. I think the Republican Party still has a good chance of getting a man in the white house under the right circumstances. in any case, the death of the Republican Party would be negative for America, the idea of any party having homogenous power or perpetual superiority over the other is horrendous.

yes. compared to Europe we are a center right country. (well more right-right but why quibble?). unfortunately the republican party is so extremely far right that it is no longer even a conservative party. its a radical reactionary nihilist party.

that isn't where the general public is.

[Terrordome]

The republican path to victory is to continue the gerrymander the hell out the country until they are assured of domination of congress. Then we will be forced to vote for a GOP president just to get anything past a obstructionist congress.

[Gauthier]

Just like Republicans believe minorities are lazy goodfornothings who expect to live on handouts, hipsters believe MSNBC to be the mirror image of FOXNews ignoring how MSNBC apologizes when they get caught on a factual error and never has it once made palm trees grow in Wisconsin.

Huh? I missed that.

When there was the protest over Scott Walker signing the union busting bill, FOXNews inserted choice footage in their coverage that tried to make it appear the protestors were violently rioting. Problem was, said choice footage contained palm trees in the background.

[Maineiacs]

Huh? I missed that.

When there was the protest over Scott Walker signing the union busting bill, FOXNews inserted choice footage in their coverage that tried to make it appear the protestors were violently rioting. Problem was, said choice footage contained palm trees in the background.

Did no one call them on this? Do you have a link?

[Gauthier]

When there was the protest over Scott Walker signing the union busting bill, FOXNews inserted choice footage in their coverage that tried to make it appear the protestors were violently rioting. Problem was, said choice footage contained palm trees in the background.

Did no one call them on this? Do you have a link?

As usual, FOXNews was called on it and did nothing.

Plenty of articles on the Wisconsin Palm Trees but here's a portion:

While covering Wisconsin Fox News runs video with palm trees in background

Fox News Uses Footage From California Rally In Segment On Wisconsin Protests (VIDEO)

[Maineiacs]

Did no one call them on this? Do you have a link?

As usual, FOXNews was called on it and did nothing.

Plenty of articles on the Wisconsin Palm Trees but here's a portion:

While covering Wisconsin Fox News runs video with palm trees in background

Fox News Uses Footage From California Rally In Segment On Wisconsin Protests (VIDEO)

That's blatant even by their standards.

[Alien Space Bats]

... never has it once made palm trees grow in Wisconsin.

Huh? I missed that.

It's a reference to FOX News' coverage of the Wisconsin protests in 2011. FOX took film footage from a labor dispute in California and aired it as video accompanying an announcer's remarks about what was going on in Wisconsin.

FOX selected the footage because it showed strikers acting like bullies towards passers by, smashing cars, and whatnot; unfortunately, sharp-eyed observers noted the presence of palm trees in the footage, proving that it hadn't been taken in Wisconsin, which had snow on the ground at the time of the protests. Ultimately, third parties were able to examine the footage and identify when and where it had been taken; it was (as I stated earlier) not film of the Wisconsin protests at all, yet FOX had aired it as though it was.

FOX never responded to charges that its coverage had been deceptive; its defenders assert that what FOX did wasn't dishonest, but merely an attempt to convey an idea that FOX (and said defenders) feel to be valid (and hence "true", at least "in their universe"): Namely, that unions and those who support them are violent thugs who extort higher wages from the "rest of us" through force. That the Wisconsin protests were peaceful is, in this view, irrelevant: FOX was "speaking to a greater truth", and that "greater truth" was what REALLY mattered.

To the rest of us, it was a lie.

The thing is, MSNBC doesn't pull stunts like that or other stunts like it, such as this one:



Note how the unemployment rate is reported as "8.6%" in the final month of the graph, but the line remains steady at the "9.0%" level, so that it appears as though the jobless rate remained unchanged in the final month of the graph, as shown below:



Again, this sort of thing is typical of FOX; it is not, however, typical of MSNBC.

As I said earlier, bias is one thing; outright lies are quite another.

---

Tying this back into Republican politics, however, we shouldn't neglect the impact that FOX has on National politics, or the degree to which the GOP's fortunes would be a lot worse if it wasn't for FOX.

Throughout this thread, most of us have sought to find serious ways that the GOP could improve its political position; some have advised moderation on unpopular stands, such as opposition to expanded background checks or a pathway to citizenship for "Dreamers"; others have simply suggested that Republicans need to just talk less about these things while continuing to hold their position. Still others (such as myself) have suggested that the GOP needs to look deep inside itself and determine what values most, and then ditch ideas that don't advance that goal (my specific view is that the advancement of Protestant morality, individual effort, and support for business matters most to Republicans; thus they should disavow racism, openly embrace and try to win over the African-American religious community, foster outreach efforts and cooperation between white evangelical churches and historically black Churches {especially in efforts to fight poverty through voluntarism], fight racial disparities in incarceration and sentencing, demand a shift away from aggressive policing and towards community policing in our cities, support the growth of neighborhood-owned businesses within majority-minority communities in order to foster a greater sense of self-determination among minorities [as well as to create a new minority middle class, from which they can recruit political activists and community leaders], and insist on greater municipal autonomy from BOTH the Federal government AND the States). Others have made similar proposals, asserting that, while the GOP needs to change, it doesn't need to become "less Republican"; rather, it needs to find NEW ways to instantiate its values.

But we should not fail to acknowledge that a small number of people have advocated gaming the system rather than changing the Party. My own view is that such efforts are destined to fail; no amount of chicanery can ultimately overcome the demographic tidal wave that threatens the GOP as the next several decades march on. Yet it may well be possible for the GOP to cheat its way into victory over the short haul.

Voter disenfranchisement is one such method, and appears to be something the GOP has embraced. Voter ID laws — which actually target women more than minorities — represent one way of accomplishing this. Poll taxes — even though unconstitutional — have been offered as another possible tactic (although creating an effective poll tax in light of the 24th Amendment and Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 will be a difficult task for those who contemplate such a strategy). The GOP has shown quite a lot of interest in finding ways to keep Democrats from voting; what's surprising is that they haven't yet dared to take the more obvious step of preventing Democrats from RUNNING (by, say, changing the requirements for candidacy or eliminating the Democrats' ballot line).

An alternate strategy is to try and control the media. One facetious suggestion has been that the Republican Party could attempt to copyright the word "Republican", and then use its intellectual property rights prevent any news outlet from using that word without prior approval of whatever story said outlet wishes to air; such a strategy would probably fail, but it offers intriguing possibilities. Better would be to find ways to force the mainstream media to cover politics from a Republican slant; FOX News shows us some of the possibilities inherent in this approach.

It's probably beyond the power of the GOP and its backers to buy up all the major networks; but the idea of threatening those that are most annoying to Republicans has certainly occurred to them. Some people openly hoped that Comcast's purchase of MSNBC would lead to widespread firings there (and — a few hoped — maybe even the establishment of a second FOX). Less dramatically, though, the mere existence of FOX is a huge boon for Republicans — and not just because FOX viewers get slanted news.

No, the fact that FOX exists has in and of itself moved the mainstream networks to the right, lest they lose viewers to FOX who are angered by their "liberal" (IOW, non-conservative) coverage. The MSM's fear of losing its audience is probably the single biggest weapon in the right's media arsenal; if the right can find a way to pull the MSM further towards their P.O.V., that could help Republicans even more.

[Alien Space Bats]

What this tells us is that, barring incredibly favorable circumstances, the white vote is maxed out at 59%.

In all fairness, there are pundits who believe otherwise.

The thing is, the degree to which it may be possible for the GOP to push itself up to, say 65% of the white vote (which would stave off certain electoral defeat until the white vote drops below 65% of the electorate) depends on whether or not the white vote would respond well in aggregate to a new politics of white resentment (IOW, increasing racist appeals for whites to vote to defend themselves from "minority domination" and "ethnic extinction"). We all agree that a certain amount of this sort of thing will rally white votes; yet as it does so, it will also turn some whites off.

The question them becomes just how far this approach can go (and for how long, given that racism is fading as a political force among whites). 60% may not be the limit, but there's no real consensus as to just how far beyond 60% that limit lies, and most experts feel that there IS a limit out there; if the GOP goes the "white resentment" route and transforms itself into the American White People's Party, once it hits that level, it's doomed.

[Saiwania]

Rugged individualism means very little in the dog-eat-dog environment of unfettered globalism.

Then, too, the Republican platform offers minorities no protection whatsoever from whatever harm whites want to heap upon minorities. So, again, why should minorities vote for a Party that offers them neither hope nor protection, but simply unrelenting torment?

What torment is that? Is the protection for minorities of which you speak affirmative action and other government programs that will do them favors? If the Republicans gave non-Whites everything they possibly wanted in their platform and switched to scapegoating White people instead, I don't think any of that would be enough to win them over.

If there will be more non-Whites than Whites as a share of the electorate indefinitely, than I agree that the mathematics dictate that the White vote should be jettisoned in favor of only catering to non-White interests.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Rugged individualism means very little in the dog-eat-dog environment of unfettered globalism.

Then, too, the Republican platform offers minorities no protection whatsoever from whatever harm whites want to heap upon minorities. So, again, why should minorities vote for a Party that offers them neither hope nor protection, but simply unrelenting torment?

What torment is that? Is the protection for minorities of which you speak affirmative action and other government programs that will do them favors? If the Republicans gave non-Whites everything they possibly wanted in their platform and switched to scapegoating White people instead, I don't think any of that would be enough to win them over.

Wait, when was the last time you saw the Democratic Party make affirmative action a centerpiece of its platform? You're arguing policies from a generation ago, when they gave up on that fight.

[Alien Space Bats]

Rugged individualism means very little in the dog-eat-dog environment of unfettered globalism.

Then, too, the Republican platform offers minorities no protection whatsoever from whatever harm whites want to heap upon minorities. So, again, why should minorities vote for a Party that offers them neither hope nor protection, but simply unrelenting torment?

What torment is that? Is the protection for minorities of which you speak affirmative action and other government programs that will do them favors? If the Republicans gave non-Whites everything they possibly wanted in their platform and switched to scapegoating White people instead, I don't think any of that would be enough to win them over.

If there will be more non-Whites than Whites as a share of the electorate indefinitely, than I agree that the mathematics dictate that the White vote should be jettisoned in favor of only catering to non-White interests.

There are Republicans who support the idea that we should roll back the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and allow businesses to refuse to serve minorities, and that we should allow discrimination in housing and employment. Then, too, many conservatives cheer when some gun owner exercises his 2nd Amendment rights and blows some poor black person or Latino away for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, just because the presence of said person "scared" them.

Then there are the disparities in arrest and sentencing; the Pauls (Ron and Rand) remain virtually alone among Republicans in having acknowledged that, all other things being equal, you're more likely to be arrested, charged with a crime, and convicted if you're black or Latino; and when you are sentenced, all other things being equal, you'll be given more time in jail and face stiffer societal sanctions as a black or Latino than you would if you were white.

Hell, it's even been noted on television: At the very top of the social heap, the penalties are worse just for being black. Congressman Trey Radel got caught with cocaine, and he's looking at probation and treatment; Mayor Marion Barry got six months in prison for getting caught with cocaine. Same crime, different time.

And when white convicts get out of prison, they enjoy better employment chances than blacks with clean records. What possible justification can there be for that?!?

Telling minorities that they are ENTIRELY responsible for whether they sink or swim in a global economy where it's hard for EVERYBODY to tread water is essentially the same as telling them that you don't give a damn what happens to them. It's not necessary for the GOP to embrace affirmative action to see that as wrong, denounce it as wrong, and try to think of someway of dealing with it.

But that's the problem, Saiwania: You refuse to even TRY to come up with a solution, other than "Y'all are on your own, suckers." Surely if the tables were reversed, you'd find SOMETHING to propose to help "your people" out.

But neither you nor the GOP will even BOTHER. And THAT is why you fail with these voters.

[Saiwania]

But that's the problem, Saiwania: You refuse to even TRY to come up with a solution, other than "Y'all are on your own, suckers." Surely if the tables were reversed, you'd find SOMETHING to propose to help "your people" out.

But neither you nor the GOP will even BOTHER. And THAT is why you fail with these voters.

Okay, so what the Republican party needs is its own equivalent of the Night of the Long Knives in order to begin to fix their problems? The TEA party needs to be forcibly ejected from the party and the RNC chairman needs replacing, and most importantly it needs to completely ignore what the pundits on Fox News such as Karl Rove and talk radio's Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh say- in favor of ironing out a new platform with the help of consultants from minority communities in urban areas?

[Blasveck]

But that's the problem, Saiwania: You refuse to even TRY to come up with a solution, other than "Y'all are on your own, suckers." Surely if the tables were reversed, you'd find SOMETHING to propose to help "your people" out.

But neither you nor the GOP will even BOTHER. And THAT is why you fail with these voters.

Okay, so what the Republican party needs is its own equivalent of the Night of the Long Knives in order to begin to fix their problems? The TEA party needs to be forcibly ejected from the party and the RNC chairman needs replacing, and most importantly it needs to completely ignore what the pundits on Fox News such as Karl Rove and talk radio's Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh say- in favor of ironing out a new platform with the help of consultants from minority communities in urban areas?

That not the only option they have, just one of them, though keep in mind that what they're doing right now isn't helping them.

Understanding the problems minorities face and not painting them as just people "who want stuff" is a good start.