...Posted on 04/04/2013 11:10:18 PM PDT by neverdem
Since the 2012 elections, there’s been an extended debate over the strength of the current Democratic majority and the future viability of the Republican Party. I’ve long argued that these postmortems are overwrought, and nothing about the results altered that. After all, the demographic changes in that election were more attributable to a surprisingly large number of white voters staying home (fewer whites voted last year than in 2004, despite steady growth in absolute numbers) than to any rapid growth in minority votes. The GOP performed about as well in November as we would have expected given the state of the economy; in fact, the exit polls suggest that the GOP actually fared quite well on key policy questions, demographic changes notwithstanding.
But the debate lurches forward, and has spilled into academia. The Washington Post recently featured a well-argued column by John Sides asserting that Republicans do not need a reboot (he continued this argument on his must-read political science blog, “The Monkey Cage”). This prompted a partial rejoinder from Eric Schickler, which was picked up by Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine. The gist of the argument is summarized by Chait: “The Democrats forged a national majority beginning in 1932. That majority came apart beginning in the mid-sixties. . . . Over the last couple of election cycles, the environment itself has changed. Racial and cultural divisions no longer naturally cut in the GOP’s favor. Another, very simple way to tell the story is this graph of partisan preferences.”
This is the standard-issue realignment narrative -- on which the Emerging Democratic Majority theory rests heavily -- with the added twist of partisan self-identification. The referenced chart is reproduced below. It shows partisan preferences from the late 1930s through the present day...
--snip--
...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
IMHO, the whole reboot thing is part of the strategy by Rove et al. to make us forget that 1) they chose a poor candidate, 2) misspent a huge wad of money, and 3) were outfoxed by Obama.
Post-mortems always go overboard.
After 2004 I remember a political cartoon showing “Congressional Democrat” in a museum next to a dinosaur.
#1 Rule in politics, things change.
Hell’s bells!!!
All ya gotta do is run A REPUBLICAN!
Last time that was done was Reagan II—where the GOP only WON FORTY-NINE of the fifty seven states!*
*-Our Kenyan POTUS.
“After all, the demographic changes in that election were more attributable to a surprisingly large number of white voters staying home (fewer whites voted last year than in 2004, despite steady growth in absolute numbers) than to any rapid growth in minority votes. “
Steve Sailer has written about this extensively, long before this last election.
The Washington Post recently featured a well-argued column by John Sides asserting that Republicans do not need a reboot (he continued this argument on his must-read political science blog, “The Monkey Cage”). This prompted a partial rejoinder from Eric Schickler, which was picked up by Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine. The gist of the argument is summarized by Chait: “The Democrats forged a national majority beginning in 1932. That majority came apart beginning in the mid-sixties. . . . Over the last couple of election cycles, the environment itself has changed. Racial and cultural divisions no longer naturally cut in the GOP’s favor.BTW, the paranoid nuttery around here is disgusting.
At any rate, male participation in these elections seems to be decreasing with time. Attracting more men to the polls will, in general, help the GOP cause (gender gap, stupid), but I'm sure the RNC isn't interested in such efforts because they're afraid of being called sexist if they go in that direction.
The number of real mean are rapidly decreasing. The metrosexual is too interested in fashion accessories and spa treatments to have time to waste on anything outside himself like voting. Then there's the increasing number who hide out in their mama's basements playing video games 24/7.
Women live slightly longer, and older voters are (by and large) more likely to vote.
This is what I have said. When we repeat the Dem propaganda about us and endlessly try to reassess ourselves in public, we are actually repeating the charges and making them stick. Cut it out, everybody. Talk about it in private with fellow Republicans but not out here where even extragalactics are reading it.
How many evangelicals simply wouldn’t vote for a Mormon? I was very surprised that many conservative Christians I know were just as biased against Romney as the liberals I know. They all seemed to think that coffee would be outlawed and we would all be forced to wear magic Mormon underwear. A lot of very irrational prejudice on both sides from people that I thought were relatively rational.
Well, you’re doing just what I said is harmful—distorting to the world that we’re a bunch of intolerant Neanderthals. But go ahead. We still have free speech. Even the best are doing it.
Eyes on the enemy, folks. Look at what the opposition is doing. There’s no comparison. Night and day.
My point was that it wasn't just fellow evangelicals that I heard expressing anti-Mormon sentiment, it was also middle-of-the-roaders and garden variety Dems who normally aren't so nasty. If it was a surprise to me, I bet it was something the party hierarchy didn't take into account. Even Barry Soetero felt compelled to explain his Muslim roots because he knew it was an issue for voters. Maybe if Romney had done more outreach with the base he might have gotten enough of those missing 3 million votes to win.
So I am not being watched!?
;’)
It reminds me of an old saying about marriage, that it isn’t the marriage that isn’t working. It’s the two people involved in it. It isn’t the Party that’s at fault—it’s the divisiveness and competition and overanalysis.
Remember the word “bandwagon.” It’s a silly word but it says it all. Forget your oh-so-intelligent objections and reenergize yourself with a look at the alternative. And to repeat myself, stop working yourselves and the Party into a tattered fabric with endless recriminations. It’s really just so simple: Work as hard as you can to get the candidate you want and then get behind the candidate who wins the nomination, whether it was your first choice or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.