You're Advising the Republicans....

[Holmes]

I'm having a hard time following the "it's unacceptable for states to shift towards the Republicans" argument. So what if they did? It could be racism, but if you look closely, the counties where a lot of people live actually swung towards to Democrats, yo.

I mean at first glimpse, Tennessee is totally blue, but if you look a the red counties and compare with this:



The majority of the densely populated areas swung towards the Democrats, and it's the same in the Deep South. So I don't understand you in saying that the whole South is racist...

[anti_leftist]

Or, alternatively, I suspect that the Republicans will get one more thrashing during the 2010 midterms over their resistance to the stimulus package and will re-shape themselves as the modern-day inheritors of William Jennings Bryan, running to the left of the Democrats economically but retaining their zombie-like affection for the social stratification of the 19th century.

This, I'm almost certain now, is what will eventually happen. It's funny that many of the responses here say things like "emphasize free market economics" and "appeal more to minorities" when in reality these two strategies almost directly contradict each other. The Republican's hardline insistence on an unregulated economy is the  main factor that doomed them among minorities in 2008, and I highly doubt these groups are going to be more receptive to it in 4-8 years time. Considering how a lot of Hispanics tend to be somewhat socially conservative or at least moderate and judging by the Black vote on Prop 8, it's clear that it was not the Republicans' social views that made them unpalatable to most visible minorities.

I suppose it's possible that if a much larger proportion of Hispanics or Blacks enter the upper middle class, then free-market principles could be used to effectively appeal to them, but such a fundamental demographic shift is probably at least a generation away given the current state of the economy and the gradual nature of economic change. Although (like many moderates) I personally would love to see a libertarian-leaning Republican party, in the short-to-medium such a strategy is just not electorally feasible. Barring some massive improvement in the economy, their only chance is probably to become the more economically liberal party to lure in minorities/working-class Democrats while retaining their social conservatism (which actually doesn't alienate too large a swathe of the aforementioned groups). The downside of course is that you probably lose a lot of moderate/libertarian Republicans to the Democrats, but these groups really aren't that electorally significant in the current climate and should be easily outweighed by the other potential gains made with certain minorities/working-class whites.   

[Psychic Octopus]

I'm more than willing to believe 51% of Republican voters dislike/despise/hate blacks, and, when added to the number that hate Mexicans, that's probably considerably higher. I'd be willing to bet everything I have that an outright majority of Republican voters are racists, and you'd be a fool not to agree.
[/quote]

Are you serious? that has to be the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.

[pbrower2a]

I'm having trouble organizing my thoughts into a clear message, so bear with me:

1. Check out the racists up in Massachusetts.

Democratic support for John Kerry maxed out in a couple of counties in Massachusetts in 2004.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I look at the map and I see the culture of the Ozarks and Appalachians. Little of that area voted for Kerry in 2004, anyway. It's not sympathetic to the exotic, and it is better described as conservative than as racist. People there know what a black person is, but they just couldn't figure out Obama. Obama did little campaigning there because such was inefficient.

In 2012 Obama has a record upon which to run -- or if you are a GOP optimist, to run from.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not. Neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin is racist; look at the family photos, and note the absence of rhetorical bigotry on race.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not mine. But most Republican politicians have little to offer to most blacks -- whether in urban America irrespective of income -- or in the rural South, where political life polarizes along ethnic lines into the worst sort of machine politics: Chicago corruption without the efficiency.  The GOP loses blacks whether they are the suburban middle class (where the GOP did unusually badly with all ethnic groups, so it wasn't only race) because they misunderstand Suburbia -- and they don't reach poor blacks in the South as they reach poor whites.

The only "growth" constituency for the GOP in 2008 was poor whites, a capricious bloc of voters. If I were a GOP leader I would be concerned.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Favorite son daughter effect, as in Arizona, and it would be excused.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Win back everything, and my advice on how to do this would be to stop being insane intolerant jerks.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

Try, and when it doesn't work, give up.

[paul718]

Why did you have to resurrect this thread?  The absurdity I've just re-read has left me nauseous.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Why did you have to resurrect this thread?  The absurdity I've just re-read has left me nauseous.

pbrower2a resurrects many threads.

[pbrower2a]

Shortly after the elections, I would have advised them to change a lot of things.  But looking over this thread, it's increasingly clear that the Democrat Party will self-destruct from their own cockiness and self-righteousness, allowing the Republicans to emerge from the embers.  The more things change ...

Cockiness and self-righteousness among the mass support do not lose elections for the party. A reputation for unresponsiveness, corruption, and incompetence among elected leaders and their staffs does. The GOP had the Dubya era to live down  -- and still does.

[Vepres]

Shortly after the elections, I would have advised them to change a lot of things.  But looking over this thread, it's increasingly clear that the Democrat Party will self-destruct from their own cockiness and self-righteousness, allowing the Republicans to emerge from the embers.  The more things change ...

Cockiness and self-righteousness among the mass support do not lose elections for the party. A reputation for unresponsiveness, corruption, and incompetence among elected leaders and their staffs does. The GOP had the Dubya era to live down  -- and still does.

That is true, but unresponsiveness, corruption, and incompetence, among other things, are often correlated or preceded with cockiness and self-righteousness. Remember that many Republicans thought they had a permanent majority just two short years before they lost control of both houses of congress.

Also, it is unclear how long Bush will hang over the GOP. Hoover haunted the Republicans for decades, yet Nixon and the Watergate Scandal was quickly forgotten which allowed Reagan to be elected in a 46 state landslide.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Shortly after the elections, I would have advised them to change a lot of things.  But looking over this thread, it's increasingly clear that the Democrat Party will self-destruct from their own cockiness and self-righteousness, allowing the Republicans to emerge from the embers.  The more things change ...

Cockiness and self-righteousness among the mass support do not lose elections for the party. A reputation for unresponsiveness, corruption, and incompetence among elected leaders and their staffs does. The GOP had the Dubya era to live down  -- and still does.

That is true, but unresponsiveness, corruption, and incompetence, among other things, are often correlated or preceded with cockiness and self-righteousness. Remember that many Republicans thought they had a permanent majority just two short years before they lost control of both houses of congress.

Also, it is unclear how long Bush will hang over the GOP. Hoover haunted the Republicans for decades, yet Nixon and the Watergate Scandal was quickly forgotten which allowed Reagan to be elected in a 46 state landslide.

...and maybe that is because Watergate had nothing to do with economics, and the economic crisis of the late 1970s/early 1980s (which helped Reagan win) took place under Carter, a Democrat?

[Vepres]

Shortly after the elections, I would have advised them to change a lot of things.  But looking over this thread, it's increasingly clear that the Democrat Party will self-destruct from their own cockiness and self-righteousness, allowing the Republicans to emerge from the embers.  The more things change ...

Cockiness and self-righteousness among the mass support do not lose elections for the party. A reputation for unresponsiveness, corruption, and incompetence among elected leaders and their staffs does. The GOP had the Dubya era to live down  -- and still does.

That is true, but unresponsiveness, corruption, and incompetence, among other things, are often correlated or preceded with cockiness and self-righteousness. Remember that many Republicans thought they had a permanent majority just two short years before they lost control of both houses of congress.

Also, it is unclear how long Bush will hang over the GOP. Hoover haunted the Republicans for decades, yet Nixon and the Watergate Scandal was quickly forgotten which allowed Reagan to be elected in a 46 state landslide.

...and maybe that is because Watergate had nothing to do with economics, and the economic crisis of the late 1970s/early 1980s (which helped Reagan win) took place under Carter, a Democrat?

I guess the point I was trying to make was that we cannot know. However bad a parties public image becomes, if a leader, particularly a president, of the other party is just as bad or worse, the voters will quickly forget the predecessor's flaws and incompetence, which in turn helps the party. If Obama is the second coming of Carter (not likely, but possible) Republicans will look pretty good in comparison.

And yes, I realize the Watergate Scandal and Nixon probably wasn't a good example of the point I was trying to make. Bush may hang over the GOP for a few decades, or a few years depending on Obama's performance.

[TeePee4Prez]

We need to focus more on economics and why free-market principles are the best way for the economy

Most Americans don't support "free-market principles." I doubt McCain would have carried ten states if everyone had voted solely on economic issues last year. Of course, you're also right in noting the long-term decline of social conservatism, so I'm tempted to just say you're screwed and leave it at that.

Honestly, though, if I were a Republican strategist, I would keep waving the flag and screaming about "pansy-ass, tea-sipping" Europeans and scary brown people. The political climate is bound to get better for the right eventually, and this formula will work (again) when that time comes. Becoming some kind of half-assed Libertarian Party would lose a lot more votes than it gains.

I would be inclined to concur as well.  If the economy even becomes tolerable and Obama is still President other areas outside of the South could see a shift towards the GOP.  I've harped on Philadelphia, but I've also heard urban whites in places like Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh and Cincinnatti having similar sentiment.  Unfortunately, race pandering works both ways and quite well in some areas for both major parties.

[The Duke]

In 1932, FDR asked his running mate John Nance Garner if Garner had any advice on how to win the election.

Garner replied, "Stay alive until November".

That is pretty good advice.  In case you hadn't noticed, Republicans already have a lead on the generic ballot.  Expect it to grow.

Buy gold.  Sell dollars.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 1932, FDR asked his running mate John Nance Garner if Garner had any advice on how to win the election.

Garner replied, "Stay alive until November".

That is pretty good advice.  In case you hadn't noticed, Republicans already have a lead on the generic ballot.  Expect it to grow.

Buy gold.  Sell dollars.

Also, vote Arnold because he will solve all of Gray Davis' budget problems.

[Marokai Backbeat]

In case you hadn't noticed, Republicans already have a lead on the generic ballot.  Expect it to grow.

You "forum legends" crack me up.

[The Duke]

In case you hadn't noticed, Republicans already have a lead on the generic ballot.  Expect it to grow.

You "forum legends" crack me up.

Watch the generic ballot numbers.  When six months go by and I'm proven right, we'll see what you think then.

And what cracks me up is that people think ideology and not events are going to drive political development over the next few years.

[Marokai Backbeat]

In case you hadn't noticed, Republicans already have a lead on the generic ballot.  Expect it to grow.

You "forum legends" crack me up.

Watch the generic ballot numbers.  When six months go by and I'm proven right, we'll see what you think then.

Prattle on about the 'generic ballot' numbers, I personally don't think generic ballot numbers are a proper way to judge a party's situation. It's sort of like asking "Pizza vs. Pasta" it's so vague it's meaningless. I like pepperoni pizza more than macaroni, but I like spaghetti more than fruit pizza! My point is that asking "generic" questions in this area is stupid, because no one can properly poll a "Dem vs Republican" issue until we actually know the candidates.

In any case, I'm not sure how you can cling dearly to that one thing considering that hispanics and asians, the two largest growing minority groups, are trending against you, young people are trending against you (and have been for a long time), certain key swing areas & states are trending against you (and have been for a long time), Obama's approvals have remained in roughly the same area so far, a record low number of people identify as Republicans, voters have been ditching the Republican party steadily in critical states, people strongly disapprove of congressional Republicans, and people deeply distrust Republican competence on the economy and favor the Democrats by wide margins.

(I posted a long rebuttal to SS about this, I'm no one responded.)

If all that changes in 6 months, then hot damn, I'll leave Atlas, but I think you folks desperately need to come to the bitter realization that people don't like your party right now, at all, and have been slowly trending against you for a decade, and you're probably stuck out of power for a good long time. To make your argument "Anything can happen!" renders any discussion on this site pointless, so I don't even know why you're participating if that's the case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by that. You're either making a "duh" statement so obvious I'm not getting it or you've mastered the Sam Spade non-statement statement.

[The Duke]

Prattle on about the 'generic ballot' numbers, I personally don't think generic ballot numbers are a proper way to judge a party's situation. It's sort of like asking "Pizza vs. Pasta" it's so vague it's meaningless.

People tend to dismiss polls when the polls don't look good.

The Republicans are doing pretty well on a generic ballor for a party on the verge of oblivion but this runs against the narrative you prefer so you dismiss it.

In any case, I'm not sure how you can cling dearly to that one thing considering that hispanics and asians, the two largest growing minority groups, are trending against you, young people are trending against you (and have been for a long time), certain key swing areas & states are trending against you (and have been for a long time)

Frankly, your analysis of demographic groups is awfully superficial.  To say that groups x, y, and z are trending away from the Republicans in recent years means nothing.  What matters is that Americans generally, not sub-groups of Americans, have been trending away from Republicans.  Breaking it up into demographic groups focuses on the trees instead of the forest.

Why have Americans been trending away from Republicans?  George W. Bush, that's why.

The central theme of the 2006 and 2008 Democratic victories were that they were against Bush.  In 2010, the winning theme for Republicans will be that they are against Obama and his policies, policies that will fail to generate an economic recovery (In fact, they will deepen our economic problems).

To focus on a particluar state or a particular demographic misses the point.  There was a big shift in general attitudes between 2004 and 2006, a shift that seen across demographic groups.  Americans shifted, not latinos or Asians or the state of Colorado.  This shift was not driven by anything other than George Bush's seemingly endless failures as President.

Obama's approvals have remained in roughly the same area so far

Yes, he's managed to keep his approval numbers among likely voters at 57% three and a half whole months into his Presidency.  I guess that means the Republicans should just hang their cleats up, eh?

Like I've said to you before, the economy is not recovering anytime soon and the failure of the economy to recover will sap those numbers badly.  I've seen Presidents who seemed invincible at one point be brought low by economic suffering before.  George H.W. Bush can tell you all about that.

a record low number of people identify as Republicans, voters have been ditching the Republican party steadily in critical states, people strongly disapprove of congressional Republicans, and people deeply distrust Republican competence on the economy and favor the Democrats by wide margins.

Except that Republicans are closing the gap on most of the important issues.  The Democrat advantage on the economy is only 1% now.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

To make your argument "Anything can happen!" renders any discussion on this site pointless, so I don't even know why you're participating if that's the case.

I'm not arguing anything can happen.

I'm arguing that I have a good idea that a particular thing will happen.

The economy is in the midst of an extended period of decline and that the incumbent party will be blamed for their failure to handle the country's problems.  That is not an 'anything can happen' argument.  It argues that a particular outcome is overwhelmingly more likely than any other outcome.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by that. You're either making a "duh" statement so obvious I'm not getting it or you've mastered the Sam Spade non-statement statement.

Again, the point is that demographic shifts and trends in particular states are not what matters now.

What matters is the economy and events related to the economy (And to a lesser extent, geopolitical events like whether there is another terrorist attack and whether Iran gets the bomb).

Pay your consultants whatever you want for whatever strategies you like.  At the end of the day, they do not matter.  If the economy recovers, it will cement a long period of Democratic control in American politics.  If it does not, the the Republicans will get a chance to do better at solving the problems faced by ordinary Americans.

The idea that my comments are non-committal statements is silly.  I've laid my position out clearly that by 2012, Barack Obama will lose re-election because of the economy and that many Democrats will lose their seats in Congress a well.

[Vepres]

In any case, I'm not sure how you can cling dearly to that one thing considering that hispanics and asians, the two largest growing minority groups, are trending against you, young people are trending against you (and have been for a long time), certain key swing areas & states are trending against you (and have been for a long time), Obama's approvals have remained in roughly the same area so far, a record low number of people identify as Republicans, voters have been ditching the Republican party steadily in critical states, people strongly disapprove of congressional Republicans, and people deeply distrust Republican competence on the economy and favor the Democrats by wide margins.

I have to disagree with you on these demographic trends. Yes, those groups trended more democratic than the nation as a whole, but most of the nation trended democratic anyway. I suspect that if Republicans tone down the social conservatism, and rid their party of neo-cons, they could win the youth vote. As for hispanics, I think they really would've voted like white voters if it weren't for the housing crisis and harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from some GOP candidates.

Yes, people distrust the GOP, but after 2-4 years of democrats controlling the two elected branches of government, voters may start returning to the GOP. Republicans seem to be slowly changing their positions on foreign policy, as well as returning to their fiscal constraint, economically conservative roots. I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP made significant gains in the house, and maybe even some in the senate, simply because party leaders realize they have to be more inclusive. So youth, asians, and hispanics are trending Democrat for now, but this could quickly change given the right circumstances.

[pbrower2a]

In any case, I'm not sure how you can cling dearly to that one thing considering that hispanics and asians, the two largest growing minority groups, are trending against you, young people are trending against you (and have been for a long time), certain key swing areas & states are trending against you (and have been for a long time), Obama's approvals have remained in roughly the same area so far, a record low number of people identify as Republicans, voters have been ditching the Republican party steadily in critical states, people strongly disapprove of congressional Republicans, and people deeply distrust Republican competence on the economy and favor the Democrats by wide margins.

Yes, people distrust the GOP, but after 2-4 years of democrats controlling the two elected branches of government, voters may start returning to the GOP. Republicans seem to be slowly changing their positions on foreign policy, as well as returning to their fiscal constraint, economically conservative roots. I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP made significant gains in the house, and maybe even some in the senate, simply because party leaders realize they have to be more inclusive. So youth, asians, and hispanics are trending Democrat for now, but this could quickly change given the right circumstances.

It will take time for the GOP to re-establish the brand, which means that GOP candidates will need to establish themselves as fiscal conservatives with genuine solutions to problems that the Democrats (including Obama) either don't address or can't address. 
I have to disagree with you on these demographic trends. Yes, those groups trended more democratic than the nation as a whole, but most of the nation trended democratic anyway. I suspect that if Republicans tone down the social conservatism, and rid their party of neo-cons, they could win the youth vote. As for hispanics, I think they really would've voted like white voters if it weren't for the housing crisis and harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from some GOP candidates.

I don't see current young voters becoming pro-business conservatives until they see major reforms of our economic system. They have seen American capitalism at its worst in decades and they have seen only that. Not until they start finding success as owner-operators of small businesses will they have any cause to vote Republican -- such as the low-tax, low-service agenda that one associates with conservatives. I remain convinced that the formation of small businesses is the long-term solution to economic decline (and we have been in economic decline since about 2000)..