How do republicans keep winning elections

[Wesley Clark]

Yeah, I have a huge political bias and you can't really have an intelligent debate with a title like that.

But who haven't many of them alienated, insulted, pissed off or pissed on?

Everyone on the west coast
Everyone on the east coast
Everyone who isn't white
Everyone who takes science seriously (due to their attitudes on creationism and climate change)
Poor people
Secularists
Non-christians
Gays
Anyone who went to a decent college
The entire media (except talk radio & fox news)

Now Chicago is constantly being attacked by the right wing because Obama is from there. They've endlessly attacked the 'east coast' and 'west coast' as unamerican, wrong and vaguely treasonous, now they are attacking Chicago. And they are still a major political party.


How do you form a winning coalition year after year by insulting 51%+ of the country?

Liberals insult people (usually southerners and evangelical Christians). But I don't think they/we insult such a wide swath of people.

[sparky!]

I grew up conservative and used to vote Republican. I don't know why, but about 6 years ago I completely abandoned the party and find myself mostly voting Democrat (still vote GOP now and then if a candidate appeals to me, though that is increasingly seldom).

There is so much that is wrong with this country and doing nothing absolutely enrages me. The current obstructionist approach the GOP has adopted is totally and utterly mind boggling.

For instance, the Health Care bill. Do I like all of it? Nope. But it's a step to SOMETHING. God damn, work together and DO something! If you're not in the majority at the time, then when you are you can alter the laws more to your liking.

It's sad, but I'm honestly thinking of moving. Everything wrong with this country feels far too overwhelming to ever fix.

And honestly, I have no idea how they keep winning.

[Oakminster]

Considering the inflammatory nature of the OP, I'll just observe that fortunately, the disease of liberalism is not as widespread as liberals seem to think it is. Hopefully, we'll excise that cancer from the country in the next election.

[sparky!]

Considering the inflammatory nature of the OP, I'll just observe that fortunately, the disease of liberalism is not as widespread as liberals seem to think it is. Hopefully, we'll excise that cancer from the country in the next election.

I don't consider myself a liberal, yet the OP is exactly the impression I get of current affairs. I feel like we have a party in power that is bumbling along and wasting that power the voters gave them and that we have a party not in power that is willing to do anything at all, even at the risk of this country in order to gain back power.

Both parties should be ashamed of themselves.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Liberals insult people (usually southerners and evangelical Christians). But I don't think they/we insult such a wide swath of people.

Republicans?

[descamisado]

Republicans?Being told the truth isn't an insult.

[Oakminster]

I don't consider myself a liberal, yet the OP is exactly the impression I get of current affairs.

Really?

No conservatives are non-white or poor or secular or gay or take science seriously or went to a decent college or live on either coast or non-christian or work in the media outside of talk radio/Fox News? You honestly believe that?

[Ellen Cherry]

Moving thread from MPSIMS to IMHO.

And just a note, Wesley I'm not sure why you started this thread here, rather than Great Debates or the Pit, but as long as we're here, everyone needs to remember to keep things civil.

Ellen Cherry
MPSIMS Moderator

[Wesley Clark]

Really?

No conservatives are non-white or poor or secular or take science seriously or went to a decent college? You honestly believe that?

Not really. I believe most people in those demographics vote GOP barely 10-30% of the time. Except the decent college part, I have no idea.

But most secularists, non-whites, poor people, intellectuals, etc tend to be non-GOP. That doesn't make them pro-democrat, just not really members of the GOP.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Being told the truth isn't an insult.

This is exactly the sort of <checks forum> pompous, overdramatic straight line that Bricker, Oakminister et al get so pissed about. If you can't realize just how insulting that is, then you've spent way too much time in Pissy Little Feuds GD. Here's why. With that one line, you say:

All republicans are liars or stupid
You are always right
People should be grateful to you when you insult them.


None of these are nice things.

[descamisado]

This is exactly the sort of <checks forum> pompous, overdramatic straight line that Bricker, Oakminister et al get so pissed about. If you can't realize just how insulting that is, then you've spent way too much time in Pissy Little Feuds GD. Here's why. With that one line, you say:

All republicans are liars or stupid
You are always right
People should be grateful to you when you insult them.


None of these are nice things.

I'm not really concerned about what pisses those people off but about who out of all the scoundrels makes the best attempts to run the countries for all the people.

And it's a good thing that I don't hang out in GD and that I never said any of the things you've bullet-pointed.

Phew!

[sparky!]

Really?

No conservatives are non-white or poor or secular or gay or take science seriously or went to a decent college or live on either coast or non-christian or work in the media outside of talk radio/Fox News? You honestly believe that?

Oops, sorry. I meant that my impression is that the GOP is willing to alienate, insult or piss off anyone who is not a 100% GOP conservative. I feel they are willing to cast aside huge swaths of the populace if those people disagree even a little.

Sad, really.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Really?

No conservatives are non-white or poor or secular or gay or take science seriously or went to a decent college or live on either coast or non-christian or work in the media outside of talk radio/Fox News? You honestly believe that?

Is the point that none of those people are conservatives or that Wesley Clark doesn't understand why they would be?

Gays are probably the best example. The elected Republicans and official Republican party are so openly hateful and vile to gays, I can't understand why any gay person would ever vote Republican. I like the policies the Democrats generally support, but if they hated me and compared my sexual preference to bestiality and said I was going to hell and fought to deny me basic rights.... I probably wouldn't vote for them.

[Der Trihs]

How do you form a winning coalition year after year by insulting 51%+ of the country? By having people who vote for you for various foolish or evil reasons. People who are narrow enough or just nasty enough that they don't realize that they are voting for people who are essentially their enemies. Examples:

* Because they are such obsessed single issue voters that they'll sacrifice anything and everything else for the Issue; gunlovers being an example.

* By appealing to hatred; the homophobes, the sexists, the racists, the class warriors and so on.

* By appealing to greed. Short sighted greed; most people actually tend to lose under the Republicans.

* Ignorance. From what I've read over the years, Republican supporters often have no idea or the wrong idea about what the Republicans actually do and what they actually state as their intentions.

* Their priest told them to.

[Trepa Mayfield]

By having people who vote for you for various foolish or evil reasons. People who are narrow enough or just nasty enough that they don't realize that they are voting for people who are essentially their enemies. Examples:

* Because they are such obsessed single issue voters that they'll sacrifice anything and everything else for the Issue; gunlovers being an example.

* By appealing to hatred; the homophobes, the sexists, the racists, the class warriors and so on.

* By appealing to greed. Short sighted greed; most people actually tend to lose under the Republicans.

* Ignorance. From what I've read over the years, Republican supporters often have no idea or the wrong idea about what the Republicans actually do and what they actually state as their intentions.

* Their priest told them to.

Boy, those republicans sure are vitriolic and divisive, eh? It's a wonder republicans win elections considering how vitriolic they act! As opposed to those democrats, they're always so polite and considerate!

[Stink Fish Pot]

Is the point that none of those people are conservatives or that Wesley Clark doesn't understand why they would be?

Gays are probably the best example. The elected Republicans and official Republican party are so openly hateful and vile to gays, I can't understand why any gay person would ever vote Republican. I like the policies the Democrats generally support, but if they hated me and compared my sexual preference to bestiality and said I was going to hell and fought to deny me basic rights.... I probably wouldn't vote for them.

This is just bullshit.

I tend to vote Republican (not a straight ticket voter... why I feel I have to point this out is beyond me, but I sense that if someone admits to voting republican on this board, they are automatically thrown into the same "religious right" bucket) and I'm neither openly hateful or vile to gays. I have gay friends who vote Republican because they agree with crazy ideas like the idea of small government and low taxes. I have gay friends who are more conservative than I am. Believe it or not, there are many people who look at a number of issues that impact them. Successful gay people have concerns similar to successful straight people...

Crazy things, like economic concerns. How they may not want a bloated government spending their hard-earned money by raising their taxes. Amazing, isn't it?

Christ, the tunnel-vision on this board is amazing.

[rowrrbazzle]

Now Chicago is constantly being attacked by the right wing because Obama is from there. Complete bullshit. There's plenty to criticize about Chicago other than Obama. And I should know because I live in Chicago. Recent case: “If I put this up your butt, you’ll find out how effective it is,” Mayor Daley said as he picked up a rifle with a bayonet and answered a reporter who questioned the effectiveness of the city’s gun ban.Footnote: the mayor and the city council permitted themselves to own guns, unlike the rest of us peons.

They've endlessly attacked the 'east coast' and 'west coast' as unamerican, wrong and vaguely treasonous, now they are attacking Chicago. And they are still a major political party.Define endlessly. And heaven knows liberals know best and are NEVER wrong. :rolleyes:

How do you form a winning coalition year after year by insulting 51%+ of the country?You may be asking yourself that question after the November elections.

Liberals insult people (usually southerners and evangelical Christians). But I don't think they/we insult such a wide swath of people.I know this is hard for you to understand, but there are actually some people who are not in either of those groups who might not like that bigotry anyway, such as independent voters.

[Superhal]

Regardless of how repulsive their ideas are, apparently there's enough people out there who support it.

[JThunder]

Christ, the tunnel-vision on this board is amazing.This is exactly why I tend to roll my eyes whenever people talk about how intelligent the SDMB is. To be sure, people here tend to be well educated and well informed on a variety of topics. They also tend to be more open to discussing ideas than most other folks are. Nevertheless, the degree of tunnel vision hereabouts -- and that's an excellent term indeed -- is appalling.

[elfkin477]

I find it amusing that the implication of the OP is that the GOP is pissing off more people than the Dems. Surely right now angry right-wingers are more visible and easy to quantify than angry left-wingers.

[Der Trihs]

Boy, those republicans sure are vitriolic and divisive, eh? It's a wonder republicans win elections considering how vitriolic they act! As opposed to those democrats, they're always so polite and considerate!Democrats are on the whole weak, cowardly, and passive. Unwilling to point out the obvious evil and stupidity of the Republicans, and unwilling to stand up to them. I'm not a Democrat.

I tend to vote Republican (not a straight ticket voter... why I feel I have to point this out is beyond me, but I sense that if someone admits to voting republican on this board, they are automatically thrown into the same "religious right" bucket) and I'm neither openly hateful or vile to gays. But you are trying to put into power people who are; the consequences are the same regardless of your motivations.

I have gay friends who vote Republican because they agree with crazy ideas like the idea of small government and low taxes. I have gay friends who are more conservative than I am. Believe it or not, there are many people who look at a number of issues that impact them. Successful gay people have concerns similar to successful straight people...

Crazy things, like economic concerns. How they may not want a bloated government spending their hard-earned money by raising their taxes. Amazing, isn't it?No, it's an example of the kind of behavior I was point out above. It's very foolish for anyone gay to vote Republican regardless of their reasons; that's like a black man voting for the KKK. And, the reasons you all give are bad ones in themselves since the Republicans are anything but fiscally prudent and have no interest in small government.

This is exactly why I tend to roll my eyes whenever people talk about how intelligent the SDMB is. To be sure, people here tend to be well educated and well informed on a variety of topics. They also tend to be more open to discussing ideas than most other folks are. Nevertheless, the degree of tunnel vision hereabouts -- and that's an excellent term indeed -- is appalling.No; it's simply that the Republicans are both nasty and incompetent; admitting that is admitting reality, not "tunnel vision". Regardless of how politically incorrect it is to admit it.

I find it amusing that the implication of the OP is that the GOP is pissing off more people than the Dems. Surely right now angry right-wingers are more visible and easy to quantify than angry left-wingers.Yeah, but they lost the election. And they've alienated huge swathes of people who would probably otherwise support them; Hispanics for example. More to the point; the OP was pointing out all the people who should be pissed of; that doesn't mean that they actually are.

[Duckster]

Liberals insult people (usually southerners and evangelical Christians). But I don't think they/we insult such a wide swath of people.

My wife is from The South (you missed the capitalization) and somewhat religious. She's also quite open-minded in most ways, yeah, like, kinda liberal. If she were to read this thread, she would consider your comment insulting. But she would never stoop to such a level as you have. "It's ok if he believes that. Well, bless his heart ..."

[Stink Fish Pot]

Democrats are on the whole weak, cowardly, and passive. Unwilling to point out the obvious evil and stupidity of the Republicans, and unwilling to stand up to them. I'm not a Democrat.

You aren't a Democrat? Why? Wouldn't they have you, either?


But you are trying to put into power people who are; the consequences are the same regardless of your motivations.

Not every Republican believes the same things. I don't know what your political party is, or how you would identify yourself, but I have a feeling the party would have 1 member.


No, it's an example of the kind of behavior I was point out above. It's very foolish for anyone gay to vote Republican regardless of their reasons; that's like a black man voting for the KKK. And, the reasons you all give are bad ones in themselves since the Republicans are anything but fiscally prudent and have no interest in small government.

You've written some pretty lame things, but this has to rank right up there with some of the most pathetic drivel I've read from you yet. Because YOU SAY SO, any gay person that votes Republican is like a black man voting for the KKK. Do you realize how ignorant you sound? Apparently not, or you wouldn't have typed that ridiculous statement.

As to your other statement "republicans are anything but fiscally prudent and have no interest in small government", I would in general agree with you; however, given the choice of our two-party system that we are unfortunately saddled with in this country, are you suggesting there isn't a choice between the two parties when it comes to these two issues? I'm amazed at the blind haze you view the world in.


No; it's simply that the Republicans are both nasty and incompetent; admitting that is admitting reality, not "tunnel vision". Regardless of how politically incorrect it is to admit it.

Wow. Your "reality" is spooky. Why do you get up in the morning? This is a free country, you know. You are free to leave it. It's not politically incorrect to admit it. It's just flat wrong. But you know that already. If you actually believe what you type, you must be a hoot at parties. I think you like to get a rise out of people. No one over the age of 10 actually believes that everything is in absolutes. Except apparently you.

No worries. I'll let my gay friends know you disapprove of their voting. I'm sure they'll re-think it and agree that it's like a black man voting for the KKK. :dubious: Of course, this puts my black gay friend in quite a pickle, doesn't it? Since he has money and votes in favor of his wallet, he must be true evil. Maybe a better analogy would be he's like a jew who would vote for Hitler! :rolleyes:

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

What, you've never heard of people voting against their best interests?

Way I see it, the Pubs have formed a majority mentality in a country that's increasingly populated by minorities. Their traditional base is white, fat, male, rich, complacent, jingoistic and rather than adapt, they're still trying to sell their line of swill to people who are none of those (well, maybe "fat" cuts across political lines these days). Their three chief electoral weapons are 1) appealing to their shrinking but still-sizable base 2)appealing to those foolish or greedy members of the opposition who aspire (inaccurately) to being rich and complacent someday 3) appealing to uninformed people who don't understand the somewhat more complex and subtle worldview that the Democrats offer, as opposed to the dumbed-down broad-brush framing of concepts that the Pubbies put forth.

[Der Trihs]

You aren't a Democrat? Why? Wouldn't they have you, either?I wouldn't have them. I don't like or respect them, why would i join them? They are better than the Republicans, but that's a very low hurdle.

Not every Republican believes the same things. Irrelevant since they are a single party, well known for party discipline. You vote for a Republican, you are voting for the Republican Party; and if you disagree with the Party you are voting against your own interests.

You've written some pretty lame things, but this has to rank right up there with some of the most pathetic drivel I've read from you yet. Because YOU SAY SO, any gay person that votes Republican is like a black man voting for the KKK. Do you realize how ignorant you sound? Apparently not, or you wouldn't have typed that ridiculous statement.Please. It's obvious, and hardly unique to me. Most of the people I know think that homosexuals who vote for Republicans are stupid, lunatics, or blinded by greed to the point of irrationality. The Republican Party is consistently and loudly the fanatic enemy of homosexuals.

As to your other statement "republicans are anything but fiscally prudent and have no interest in small government", I would in general agree with you; however, given the choice of our two-party system that we are unfortunately saddled with in this country, are you suggesting there isn't a choice between the two parties when it comes to these two issues?Yes, the Democrats are much better. The Republicans are more spendthrift, more corrupt, more incompetent, more outright irrational when it comes to finances. The economy does better under the Democrats, the population in general prospers more, less money is wasted under them.

This is a free country, you know. You are free to leave it. It's not politically incorrect to admit it. "America love it or leave it". :rolleyes: Now there's a right wing cliche.

No worries. I'll let my gay friends know you disapprove of their voting. I'm sure they'll re-think it and agree that it's like a black man voting for the KKK. :dubious: Of course, this puts my black gay friend in quite a pickle, doesn't it? Since he has money and votes in favor of his wallet, he must be true evil. A self destructive fool, if he votes Republican.

[Stratocaster]

This is exactly why I tend to roll my eyes whenever people talk about how intelligent the SDMB is. To be sure, people here tend to be well educated and well informed on a variety of topics. They also tend to be more open to discussing ideas than most other folks are. Nevertheless, the degree of tunnel vision hereabouts -- and that's an excellent term indeed -- is appalling.I agree with you and SFP. It's actually pretty funny most of the time--you just have to remind yourself that it's a very left-leaning message board that likes to congratulate itself for this attribute, assuming this is the way all right thinkers think. It remind me of the Pauline Kael quote (perhaps apocryphal) regarding Nixon's election to the presidency, how she couldn't believe he was elected, since no one she knew had voted for him.

That's this board, for the most part. Someone could post this OP with a straight face and there's not a almost-unanimous response of, "Dude, that is ridiculous overstatement." The very fact that Republicans ARE elected wasn't a hint to the OP that his premise is biased nonsense. That's just "people voting against their own interests." It's absolutely self-evidently an asinine assertion that will be for the most part applauded on this board (or be viewed as just a minor step into hyperbole, understandable really). It's message board idiocy, remind yourself, as much as this board likes to dress up their pronouncements as THE TRUTH. :D

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Republicans win elections because they use fear-fear-fear!!




Fear of Muslims.
Fear of Blacks.
Fear of Hispanics.
Fear of Gays.
Fear of The Other.

[Der Trihs]

I agree with you and SFP. It's actually pretty funny most of the time--you just have to remind yourself that it's a very left-leaning message board that likes to congratulate itself for this attribute, assuming this is the way all right thinkers think. This message board is your idea of a place that is "very left leaning"? It's at most moderate left; more center really.

And, like it or not the Republicans are both broadly factually incorrect, openly motivated by hate towards much of the population, and demonstrably incompetent. No amount of insisting that that can't be true will make it so.

[sparky!]

I don't know if I totally misread the OP or that my personal feelings are keeping me from seeing something...

But in this case, tunnel vision my ass!

I find it funny that those attacking the OP are taking the OP comments as though they were directed at them personally, "I'm a Republican and I'm nothing like that!

Why did I read it as a description of the GOP leadership and their current tactics? Again, my perception matches the OP in that the GOP leadership and their tv and radio talking heads appear to me to be only saying no No NO! about everything and are quite willing to alienate whomever they feel do not match some narrow core beliefs.

I do not read the OP as a direct attack on individual Republican voters (especially not conservative leaning individuals).

So let me ask this: those who countered so strongly, do you support the direction that those in the GOP leadership are taking? Do you agree or disagree that an obstructionist movement is being used by the Republicans within Congress?

Or am I totally off the mark/naive/seeing what I want to see?

[D_Odds]

... with crazy ideas like the idea of small government and low taxes...

..Crazy things, like economic concerns. How they may not want a bloated government spending their hard-earned money by raising their taxes. Amazing, isn't it?...If the Republican party really did this, I would vote for it. Both parties spend like there is no tomorrow. Neither party shrinks government. Both mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren. Neither adequately pay for all the spending and neither cuts spending.

Politicians of both ideologies are more concerned with bringing more and more money into their home districts, and don't care how it affects the country as a whole. None are serious about actually reducing government if it means less money at home. Bad economics trump political suicide.

[FriarTed]

[

And, like it or not the Republicans... openly motivated by hate towards much of the population...

I'm sure I'm not the first & I surely won't be the last....

Pot, meet kettle.

[Stratocaster]

I find it funny that those attacking the OP are taking the OP comments as though they were directed at them personally, "I'm a Republican and I'm nothing like that!

Why did I read it as a description of the GOP leadership and their current tactics?I don't know, because it specifically poses a question as to why anyone would vote for them. If that's not also an indictment of sorts of the people voting for the GOP, I don't know what is.So let me ask this: those who countered so strongly, do you support the direction that those in the GOP leadership are taking? Do you agree or disagree that an obstructionist movement is being used by the Republicans within Congress?You seem to be an example of what I described--it is so self-evident to you that the Republicans are evil, with evil motives, that you are incredulous that anyone would push back. You're in the right place, brother.

Re: obstructionist tactics, I am okay with them when they obstruct harmful nonsense. I personally would love to see the gears of the Federal government come to a grinding halt. I don't think that it's their job to solve every problem, and I think they generally do a horrible job of it, and I include in that assessment the fact that they think that they needn't actually have money to spend it. I despise this mindset whether it's Dem or Rep, and I'll give the Dems the props of acknowledging that at least they don't pretend to be small government. But I do look for genuine small-government, fiscal conservative candidates, and they tend not to be in the Dem party.

So, yes, I welcome anything that puts a halt to most of this "good stuff" the Obama administration and the Dem Congress are doing or have planned.

[Czarcasm]

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

[Rhythmdvl]

I agree with Sparky that there are two conversations going on in this thread—the OP’s initial question and some of the responses to it are coming from different places.

I don't know, because it specifically poses a question as to why anyone would vote for them. Here’s an area of differing interpretation. The OP asks: How do you form a winning coalition year after year by insulting 51%+ of the country?Aside from arguing that there is a subtext, note that if taken at face value there is a difference between asking “why anyone would vote” Republican and asking, after pissing off so many people, how are the Republicans still able to muster “a winning coalition.”

This seems to have little to do with basic conservative political principles and more with current leadership tactics. That is, consider for a moment the Big-Ender party; they want to make it official state policy that eggs are opened big-side first. The country is about split (a rebuttable premise of the OP) on the issue, say 40% big-enders, 40% small-enders, and the rest neutral or undecided. The Big-Ender party puts forward a campaign that arguably (another rebuttable premise) alienates several large groups. Within these large groups, there is no strong correlation between group membership and –endedness. For example, when polled on –endedness, gay people are just as likely to answer ‘big’ as they are ‘small’, just as there is no inherent connection between homosexuality and preference for different fiscal policies.

The question seems to be “now that the Big-Enders have alienated these groups, how is it that their overall vote numbers have not diminished proportionately?” This isn’t asking how anyone could still vote Big-Ender. It’s not even asking how could a gay man still vote for the Big-Ender party after being insulted (insults aside, some people would still want to make big-endedness policy, and would rationally not want a small-ender in office). It’s suggesting that there were potential Big-Ender voters who have been put off voting for them, and asking how the party is still able to garner an ostensible plurality without those votes.

……

Addressing the OP:
Because politics is theatre, and because though it’s better than any alternative, the actual vote count doesn’t actually represent actual, societal-wide tallies. The tactics that alienate so many aren’t necessarily meant to appeal to rationality and reason (those are drawn in by less vitriolic expressions of political philosophy), they’re meant to motivate and entice people to action; to get out the vote. The strategy is courting the notion that the number of people whose passions are enflamed to the point of attending rallies and voting (and, crucially, who would not have done so before) is greater than the number of people who are put off and would not vote for them.

[descamisado]

I don't know if I totally misread the OP or that my personal feelings are keeping me from seeing something...

But in this case, tunnel vision my ass!

I find it funny that those attacking the OP are taking the OP comments as though they were directed at them personally, "I'm a Republican and I'm nothing like that!

Why did I read it as a description of the GOP leadership and their current tactics? Again, my perception matches the OP in that the GOP leadership and their tv and radio talking heads appear to me to be only saying no No NO! about everything and are quite willing to alienate whomever they feel do not match some narrow core beliefs.

I do not read the OP as a direct attack on individual Republican voters (especially not conservative leaning individuals).

So let me ask this: those who countered so strongly, do you support the direction that those in the GOP leadership are taking? Do you agree or disagree that an obstructionist movement is being used by the Republicans within Congress?

Or am I totally off the mark/naive/seeing what I want to see?This is exactly what I was alluding to earlier, and the questions you suggest certain posters ask themselves and honestly answer would be genuinely reflective of the truth that obviously can't be handled.

Suggesting that there is a truth, which has lately been unexamined and cast as an insult, is not the same thing as a non-Republican characterizing themselves as "always right." To say that is what is being done in a debate is deflective, dishonest, and further obstructionist, and exactly the type of non-answer the citizens in this country have been getting from that side lately.

[Stratocaster]

Here’s an area of differing interpretation. The OP asks: Aside from arguing that there is a subtext, note that if taken at face value there is a difference between asking “why anyone would vote” Republican and asking, after pissing off so many people, how are the Republicans still able to muster “a winning coalition.”I think it's an immaterial distinction, and it simultaneously offers as a given that the Republicans are using unworthy tactics and are pissing off a majority of people. This is a notion that is gospel here on the SDMB, but it's not in the real world. It leads to the cognitive dissonance reflected in the OP and then in the thread--e.g., the GOP is pissing everybody off, nobody likes them, everybody agrees their tactics are evil (offered after the OP), and yet they're still getting elected. That does not compute! Uh, no, it doesn't. I agree.

And then on this board, people will scratch their heads in response to the push-back and offer another version of, "No, no, you're misunderstanding. Since we all agree that the GOP is deliberately casting aside the best interests of the country, and insulting a majority of the populace in the process, how do we explain their ongoing viability as a political party?" Then we repeat the cycle. See what I mean?

[magellan01]

How do republicans keep winning elections?

By running against Democrats.

[Fear Itself]

By selling their votes in Congress for earmarks to benefit rural states that receive more in federal spending than they pay in taxes. Red states are parasites that leech off the hard work of blue states. Red state voters like the handouts, so they reelect the guys who bring home the bacon.

[Stratocaster]

By selling their votes in Congress for earmarks to benefit rural states that receive more in federal spending than they pay in taxes. Red states are parasites that leech off the hard work of blue states. Red state voters like the handouts, so they reelect the guys who bring home the bacon.Life is so simple here on the SDMB. Thank God there's no leechy hand-out takers in the blue states that the Dems would be tempted to pander to.

[Snnipe 70E]

I don't consider myself a liberal, yet the OP is exactly the impression I get of current affairs. I feel like we have a party in power that is bumbling along and wasting that power the voters gave them and that we have a party not in power that is willing to do anything at all, even at the risk of this country in order to gain back power.

Both parties should be ashamed of themselves.

This election in Ca it has gotten to the point that I am afraid to vote.
I remember brown as gov and I remember how he did his job as mayor of Oakland and AG.

But I don't think I can vote for either of the main Rep canidates.

In November I may vote third party. As a way of saying none of the above. Which if prop 14 passes will be that last chance.

[John Mace]

Quoting her who must not be named:

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises."

[Beware of Doug]

Today's GOP has 40-plus years of practice in getting group-oriented, authority-respecting people to be angry, fearful, and mass-mobilized. In that time span, they have effectively changed the definition of "patriotism" to jingoism, and "love of country" to hatred of anything leaders label un-American.

It's a great strategy. Sure, they've lost the executive and legislative - for now - but they are doing fine at slowing Democrats' progress, and they have the support of a lot of loyal, fearful, angry Americans. Because, among other things, they've helped them feel good and powerful and proud about being angry.

[DanBlather]

Is the point that none of those people are conservatives or that Wesley Clark doesn't understand why they would be?

Gays are probably the best example. The elected Republicans and official Republican party are so openly hateful and vile to gays, I can't understand why any gay person would ever vote Republican. I like the policies the Democrats generally support, but if they hated me and compared my sexual preference to bestiality and said I was going to hell and fought to deny me basic rights.... I probably wouldn't vote for them.They don't hate you, they lust after you.

[Fear Itself]

Life is so simple here on the SDMB. Thank God there's no leechy hand-out takers in the blue states that the Dems would be tempted to pander to.I'm sure there are. But on the whole, it is easy to see which states receive more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes (http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html), and they happen to the same conservative states that tout their devotion to self reliance and eschew big government. There are outliers of course, but the vast majority of conservative states suckle the federal tit at the expense of the blue states.

[Backcountry Medic]

Isn't the most obvious answer just that far less than 100% of the populace ever bothers to vote in any election? Even if your ideas are only supported by 30% of the country, as long as only 20% of the country show up to vote for the other guy you're gonna win. The GOP manages this fairly well by endorsing hard lines in hot-button topics; gun control, abortion, immigration. I don't see gay rights as being such an issue as much anymore (locally it may be, but not so much nationally) so the focus has slipped away a little. Most people don't have the time, energy or desire to study history, so even questionable claims like tax rates and shrinking government are going to be decided more on how appealing they might be, not a factual study of what actually happened 10, 20, 60 years ago, ect.

It's like those call-in polls that charge you every time you vote. Only people who really care about the issue at hand are only ones who bother, so it tends not to be representative of the general populace. The anecdotal rich, black, gay, gun loving friend may just look at the options, decide it's not anything worth getting up early and standing in the rain for and just vote "Who Cares?".

Note that this works both ways, but it seems like the GOP has a larger number of single issues voters who are really concerned about the topic at hand. I don't see many democrats getting riled up about gun control or abortion rights anymore. And almost certainly not exclusively.

[ITR champion]

But who haven't many of them alienated, insulted, pissed off or pissed on?
...
Everyone on the east coast
...
Everyone who takes science seriously (due to their attitudes on creationism and climate change)
...
Anyone who went to a decent college
I'm not really going to try restoring any coherent discussion to this thread, but I'll say that though I vote for Democrats more often than any other party, I'm bemused by the attitude that Wesley Clark shows in the OP. He puts "everyone on the east coast" on the list. I suppose that's a reference to Sarah Palin's 'real America" line. But the concept that Republicans insult anyone who attended college or anyone who takes science seriously really puzzles me to no end. Certain liberals seem to assume that when I attended a top college of science and engineering and did graduate work in math at a top university, I also signed an oath in blood vowing that I would always side with the left on all political and cultural issues. But I don't remember signing any such oath. When was this supposed to happen? When I received my Bachelor's? At my thesis defense?

Sure there are a handful of people on the right who have taken stupid positions on scientific issues. There are people on the left who have done so to. Believing in evolutionary psychology is just as anti-scientific as believing that the earth is 6,000 years old. Why should it be assumed that I'm willing to ignore the first while basing my political positions exclusively on the second?
Liberals insult people (usually southerners and evangelical Christians). But I don't think they/we insult such a wide swath of people.
Typically all Christians, not just evangelical Christians. And it happens frequently. A normal day here at the SDMB will feature numerous declarations that all Christians are inferior. Why, then, am I supposed to ignore those insults from the left while getting worked up about insults that the right made years ago?

[Beware of Doug]

Most people don't have the time, energy or desire to study history...I bitch about that myself, but maybe we ought to be glad. Where history is a living thing - as it is in many parts of Europe - you get centuries of bloodshed.

Imagine today if millions of Southerners wanted recompense in lives from the North for the Civil War. It'd make the threat of Islamic terrorism look fairly tame.

[Rhythmdvl]

I think it's an immaterial distinction, and it simultaneously offers as a given that the Republicans are using unworthy tactics and are pissing off a majority of people. This is a notion that is gospel here on the SDMB, but it's not in the real world. It leads to the cognitive dissonance reflected in the OP and then in the thread--e.g., the GOP is pissing everybody off, nobody likes them, everybody agrees their tactics are evil (offered after the OP), and yet they're still getting elected. That does not compute! Uh, no, it doesn't. I agree.

And then on this board, people will scratch their heads in response to the push-back and offer another version of, "No, no, you're misunderstanding. Since we all agree that the GOP is deliberately casting aside the best interests of the country, and insulting a majority of the populace in the process, how do we explain their ongoing viability as a political party?" Then we repeat the cycle. See what I mean?

Yes I do, but I disagree that it’s an immaterial distinction. Not that I completely disagree with your analysis that follows, just that I disagree that the question can’t be asked. If the question can be asked, then I daresay your analysis would differ. Not that your preferences or policy choices or affiliations would change in any way—your analysis following the question would still be in accord with all of that. But it seems by disallowing the distinction you’re not answering the question the OP is trying to pose (or the question I think the OP is trying to pose).

Though I’m loath to use specific examples (they tend to have too many less-than-relevant hooks that threaten to detract from the general point), allow me some leeway in considering the governor’s race in Alabama. Per a Pit thread, there is an ad campaign taking place in which both Republican candidates are proclaiming that not only are they Creationists, but that they find it insulting to them to be considered an Evolutionist (again, please don’t get bogged down in the nuances of the campaign, if this isn’t an apt example I’ll find another).

Consider the set of all people in Alabama who believe in evolution and do not take the Bible literally. Though there are many different subsets, focus only on the set of those whose political beliefs are in accord with the Republican candidates and who would have voted Republican, but who are now put off from voting for them (whether that means staying home on election day or voting for the Democrat is immaterial—the end result is the same).

What is the size of that set? Are you arguing that it’s empty? That no person is turned off from voting Republican in the election because of the candidates’ posturing as Creationists? While possible, I think that would be a very difficult argument to make.

Now, take for the moment the same type of set for the various categories referred to in the OP. There has been some strong anti-Muslim rhetoric used by (and not widely distanced/denounced by the leadership of) the Republican party. Is the set of Muslim voters who would have voted Republican but were so put off that they are going to stay home empty?

Assuming that these are not empty sets, aggregate them and consider the number of people in the total set. The OP seems to be expressing bafflement that the Republicans are still able to muster enough votes to win elections (or poll so well; winning elections may be a bit premature) despite foregoing this set of likely Republican voters.

Taking it as step further, consider one of the implications of the OP: If they didn’t act so as to create this set, then their electoral numbers would be astronomically larger than they are now.

My response to the OP is that by adopting these tactics (which are NOT the only tactics used to secure votes or participation) the set of people who respond to them by voting or otherwise getting active who would not have done so otherwise is larger than the above sets.

Please note that I recognize that the majority of Republicans are not voting/acting based on the situation or tactics referred to in the OP, and that the set of those that do respond to those tactics is merely a subset of all Republicans. For example, I’m NOT trying to say that if you vote Republican you are anti-evolution, are supporting Creationism, or anything like it. You could roll your eyes at the ads and still vote for the person who more accurately represents your political philosophy (or even is just the lesser of two evils). In any of those and many other cases, you are not part of either the set that would have voted Republican but is now turned off or the set of people that would not have voted Republican but is now motivated to vote.

Returning back to my presumption that your analysis would change if you approached the question differently, it’s possible (and I’m only guessing here, not trying to put words in your mouth) that you could argue that the aggregate number of gays, Muslims, Ivy League graduates, and others in the above sets is statistically insignificant. Or perhaps that the number of people who are in accord with the Republican platform dwarfs the number of ostensible Democrats, and the losses of those sets only make elections closer. You could also argue that the sets aren’t empty, but the Democrats also alienate similar numbers of different groups so that the numbers balance out. I think another viable tack is that the suggestion that Republican tactics are alienating people is itself off base, and that the only people who notice and cry OUTRAGE at the various ads and statements are so far to the left that they never would have been part of the set of possible Republican voters in the first place (I think this is closest to what you were saying, but again I’m only guessing and not trying to speak for you).

[Stratocaster]

I'm sure there are. But on the whole, it is easy to see which states receive more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes (http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html), and they happen to the same conservative states that tout their devotion to self reliance and eschew big government. There are outliers of course, but the vast majority of conservative states suckle the federal tit at the expense of the blue states.That doesn't support your premise. You're leaping to the conclusion that this is the result of pork that bought votes, pork provided by Republican legislators. Your own cite explains it differently:High-income states cannot hope to receive back from the federal government more than they send in federal taxes because of the progressive nature of the federal income tax. Since the tax structure is unlikely to change, and federal spending is largely on auto-pilot, donor states are almost certain to keep sending more to Washington than they get in return.Given that explanation, is it a surprise Mississippi is on that list? West Virginia? They're the beneficiaries of runaway federal spending--spending on "autopilot," according to your cite--spending that is expanding under a Democratic Congress, while also being dirt-poor states (relatively speaking). Should we abandon the progressive tax system? That would solve much of this apparently. Sorry, you've not provided evidence for your "here's why people vote Republican" hypothesis.

[DanBlather]

In all seriousness, though, the Republicans are doing a better job of understanding the needs of white, Christian, suburban/rural , and low to middle income people. They do not benefit from affirmative action or other programs that target specific groups. There are no special programs to help their kids get into college or pay for it or to help them get jobs. Gay rights is not a big deal to them because they don't have un-closeted gay friends and neighbors. They don't want to go to the drive through at McDonalds and not be able to understand what the person taking their order is saying. Their kids not only do not benefit from bi-lingual education, it takes money away from programs that would help their children.

Democrats don't speak their language. People don't want to hear that rich people need to pay more taxes, because they want to be rich someday themselves. Meanwhile the world around them is changing faster than they can adapt. Sushi, espresso, rap music, electric cars, just when they grasped how Windows XP works it changes to Windows 7. Then there is 3G and 4G and IP and MP3 and their old TVs don't work anymore and Lawrence Welk is gone and it's just all too fucking much.

The Democrats need to become more populist. Clinton knew this, but Kerry and Gore had no fucking clue. The Dems need to embrace patriotism, and acknowledge the importance of God in people's lives (even f it isn't important to them), and stop talking aboun the United State's weaknesses and focus on it's strengths. Don't say (like I do) that our healthcare system sucks, say that we have the best hospitals and doctors in the world and we want to make sure that every person in the United States can have access to it. Say that America has to raise taxes a little bit so that we don't leave our children a load of debt. How we have to make sacrifices like people did in WWI and WW2 so that future generations have it better.

Stop narrowly focusing on women (I know they are more than 50%) and minorities and look for programs that target people based on need and talent rather than race. Stress that the US is the most religious country in the world because of separation of church and state, not despite it. Say that prayer at home with you family before school is better than having the state take over that duty in school. Acknowledge that homosexuality is scary if you have not been around gay people.

[Stratocaster]

Rhythmdvl, I think your response is both interesting and much more nuanced than that suggested by the OP. No one could reasonably dispute that there are people put off by the rhetoric advanced by either party, people that might otherwise have voted for that party. That subset is certainly greater than zero. I would assert that it is, by evidence of the facts, not sufficient to keep Republicans from being elected. I'd speculate, without any facts at my fingertips, that it's not material (again, focusing on people that might actually have voted Republican). If a creationist candidate ran in my state, I'd be put off by it, but I'd have to assess the overall impact of both platforms. I could well vote for the creationist guy (but not because he's a creationist; that would piss me off).

I think the outrage expressed is, indeed, largely by people who had a zero probability of voting Republican. It is such voters on this board who express their incredulity over the fact that the self-evident evil of the Republican party is somehow not sufficient to keep people from voting for these demons. I don't believe threads like this are generally looking for nuanced discussion over interesting political phenomena; rather, they're calls to the faithful, so that we can all gnash our teeth over the evil Pubbies and applaud ourselves for our insight. It's silly. It's echo-chamber nonsense.

[Stratocaster]

DanBlather, that was an insightful post.

[Der Trihs]

I don't know, because it specifically poses a question as to why anyone would vote for them. If that's not also an indictment of sorts of the people voting for the GOP, I don't know what is.You seem to be an example of what I described--it is so self-evident to you that the Republicans are evil, with evil motives, that you are incredulous that anyone would push back. You're in the right place, brother.It's not puzzling at all. They appeal to their base; evil and stupid people. Who don't care that the cause they fight for is evil and stupid because they are too.

Re: obstructionist tactics, I am okay with them when they obstruct harmful nonsense. I personally would love to see the gears of the Federal government come to a grinding halt. I don't think that it's their job to solve every problem, and I think they generally do a horrible job of it, and I include in that assessment the fact that they think that they needn't actually have money to spend it. I despise this mindset whether it's Dem or Rep, and I'll give the Dems the props of acknowledging that at least they don't pretend to be small government. But I do look for genuine small-government, fiscal conservative candidates, and they tend not to be in the Dem party.

So, yes, I welcome anything that puts a halt to most of this "good stuff" the Obama administration and the Dem Congress are doing or have planned.In other words, you support famine, mass suffering and death in disasters, general environmental degradation, and the broad imposition of racism, sexism, religious bigotry, and similar things across the country. Because without the federal government intervening, that's exactly what happens. Your mentality is the same as the Bush Administration, who sabotaged the federal government; and the new government of Iraq as well. And we all saw the results. For that matter, we've seen the results historically.

But the concept that Republicans insult anyone who attended college or anyone who takes science seriously really puzzles me to no end. Certain liberals seem to assume that when I attended a top college of science and engineering and did graduate work in math at a top university, I also signed an oath in blood vowing that I would always side with the left on all political and cultural issues. But I don't remember signing any such oath. When was this supposed to happen? When I received my Bachelor's? At my thesis defense?Don't deliberately misunderstand; he obviously meant they hate and insult you for going to college regardless of your political position.

Sure there are a handful of people on the right who have taken stupid positions on scientific issues. There are people on the left who have done so to. Believing in evolutionary psychology is just as anti-scientific as believing that the earth is 6,000 years old. Why should it be assumed that I'm willing to ignore the first while basing my political positions exclusively on the second?They aren't remotely the same. Earth being 6000 years old contradicts everything we know and is a position purely based on religion; evolutionary psychology fits right in with what we know both of biology and human psychology, and is denied simply because it offends people. It's the denial of evolutionary psychology that is irrational and unscientific; it is an attempt to claim that evolution works differently for us than everything else.

[msmith537]

Yeah, I have a huge political bias and you can't really have an intelligent debate with a title like that.

But who haven't many of them alienated, insulted, pissed off or pissed on?

Everyone on the west coast
Everyone on the east coast
Everyone who isn't white
Everyone who takes science seriously (due to their attitudes on creationism and climate change)
Poor people
Secularists
Non-christians
Gays
Anyone who went to a decent college
The entire media (except talk radio & fox news)


Because there are a significant number of white, middle class, hetero Christian people who live in the states between New York and California, and don't particularly care about science?

As for going to a "decent college", what schools do you think all those wealthy Republican investment banker and lawyer types graduated from?

DanBlather is right. Democrats do not understand how to connect to the common folk. To the vast majority of hard-working middle-Americans, Democrats appear as a pompous, condescending, ivory tower intellectual elite who want to punish the successful in order to reward the poor.

[elucidator]

That's an intriguing analysis. Certainly good news for the McCain Campaign.

[gravitycrash]

DanBlather, that was an insightful post.

I agree. Well said Dan

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

This is just bullshit.

I tend to vote Republican (not a straight ticket voter... why I feel I have to point this out is beyond me, but I sense that if someone admits to voting republican on this board, they are automatically thrown into the same "religious right" bucket) and I'm neither openly hateful or vile to gays. I have gay friends who vote Republican because they agree with crazy ideas like the idea of small government and low taxes. I have gay friends who are more conservative than I am. Believe it or not, there are many people who look at a number of issues that impact them. Successful gay people have concerns similar to successful straight people...

Crazy things, like economic concerns. How they may not want a bloated government spending their hard-earned money by raising their taxes. Amazing, isn't it?

Christ, the tunnel-vision on this board is amazing.

It's not that you're openly hateful to gays. You're just some guy on the Internet It's that the national leaders and official policy is abhors gays and actively works to deprive them of basic rights. People shouldn't be multi-issue voters when one of them is "they're trying to keep me from having basic rights".

At some point it just gets silly. "You voted Nazi, Goldberg!? But they locked us in this ghetto!" and Goldberg says, "Have you seen what they did with the autobahn? This country needed infrastructure investment! I'm not a one-issue voter!"

[John Mace]

Wow. We went a full page before Hitler got invoked. That's better than usual.

[Der Trihs]

Wow. We went a full page before Hitler got invoked. That's better than usual.
It only took so long because people act like invoking Hitler is a bad argument, even when the analogy is obvious.

[SenorBeef]

I have gay friends who vote Republican because they agree with crazy ideas like the idea of small government and low taxes.

You've listed one of the primary reasons, actually, quite unintentionally. The Republicans have somehow managed to convince people that they're the party of small government and fiscal responsibility despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, and that's a big reason why people vote for them despite it not actually being true.




More generally, it's the nature of a two party system. The us vs them mentality. Sometimes the hatred of them becomes so strong that it doesn't matter how much you get screwed over by "us" - your hatred of the other side trumps any concerns on your own. So the party that isn't the democratic party is going to get, say, 40% of the vote no matter what. Republicans could come out and say that their platform is now the execution of all people with black hair, mandatory juggling of swords and babies together, and that 30% of your diet must consist of fecal matter, and they'd still get that 40% because they're not the democrats. It doesn't matter what they do - the last decade or so, especially the last 2 years, should be proof of that - the base is still with the party, and their concern is actually that the party isn't batshit crazy *enough*.

[Hilarity N. Suze]

My computer is slow so I haven't read the whole thread so my apologies if I'm being repetitive.

Republicans get elected. Piss everybody off. In reaction, Democrats get elected.

Democrats get elected, piss everybody off. In reaction, Republicans get elected.

And repeat.

[DigitalC]

A lot of people support their party the way they would a sports team. Even when they suck there is that "wait until next year!" mentality that keeps people coming back for more. Specially when the "league" only has two teams and your only option is to switch to your hated enemies.

[Stratocaster]

That's an intriguing analysis. Certainly good news for the McCain Campaign.Both parties have enough of a base, and enough of an appeal beyond the base, to continue as viable national parties. Both parties are tone deaf (perhaps deliberately so?) relative to certain constituencies. DanBlather, I think, identified a Dem "message weakness" nicely--i.e., you can agree with every plank in their platform, and still agree with Dan's assessment that they do not maximize this particular constituency, that there's at least something of a disconnect there where their message falls flat.

Invoking the last presidential election doesn't change that. It won't be the last election the Dems win, and the Republicans will win other presidential elections as well. But they'll both do so continuously trying to create the best message, in the process alienating some (in some instances unavoidably). In some instances they'll win despite certain message disconnects, in some instances they'll lose as a result of them. Obviously a very complex set of variables that create a win (or loss). But those disconnects will exist nonetheless, if left unaddressed. Dan's on the money here, I think--the Dems ignore this at their peril. Obviously, we'll see. Perhaps the Dems will create permanent majorities and own the Whte House forever as a result of their resonant message, just the way the Pubbies did before them, and the Dems before them, and the Pubbies before them (or, "what Hilarity N. Suze says")....:)

[Stratocaster]

It's not that you're openly hateful to gays. You're just some guy on the Internet It's that the national leaders and official policy is abhors gays and actively works to deprive them of basic rights. People shouldn't be multi-issue voters when one of them is "they're trying to keep me from having basic rights".I agree with this. If the Dems changed a single policy in their national platform, I could often have voted for them. But that issue is so fundamental, so important and violative of basic human rights, that I can't simply overlook it. I don't mean that as a tu quoque--I understand completely how the issue of gay rights could, for someone else, exist as such a right, something that could not be brushed aside.

[Wesley Clark]

Is the point that none of those people are conservatives or that Wesley Clark doesn't understand why they would be?

Gays are probably the best example. The elected Republicans and official Republican party are so openly hateful and vile to gays, I can't understand why any gay person would ever vote Republican. I like the policies the Democrats generally support, but if they hated me and compared my sexual preference to bestiality and said I was going to hell and fought to deny me basic rights.... I probably wouldn't vote for them.

That is more or less my point. Black voters used to be swing voters until the civil rights polarization, when all the conservative dems left to join the GOP in the south (the dems were the party of anti-civil rights, then there was reorganization in the 60s). Now blacks tend to vote GOP barely 8-10% of the time. Kerry won about 90% of the black vote, Obama won 95%.

Latinos are another group. The intense immigration debate (which, no matter what people may say is driven to a good degree by fear of cultural/ethnic outsiders) is starting to push latinos away from the GOP again. Bush made some inroads with latinos (Kerry won them about 55-44 vs Bush) but the immigration debate starting in 2005 pushed them away from the GOP. They went Obama about 66-33.

Gays are the same, about 3/4 are not republican.

People who call themselves scientists or who are members of the professional class are not identifying with the GOP as much due to their attitudes on science and religion.

That doesn't make someone 'pro-democrat' but it doesn't seem like it'd help them become 'pro-republican' either.

The 'east coast, west coast' thing probably doesn't matter. If I lived in Oregon and heard numerous people in one party insult the 'west coast' I really wouldn't take it personally. However if I were gay or black and had to listen to talk of states rights or bestiality comparisons I would take it personally.

I really don't know. The GOP has also now lost the youth vote (at least for the time being). Starting in 2004 youth started leaning democratic, and by 2008 it was a 2-1 margin. The margins are smaller now but are still there.

How do they keep winning elections if they have alienated such wide swaths of the public? On race alone, non-whites are supposed to be the majority of the public by the 2040s. Millennials will be 1/3 of voters by the 2020s.

As far as some of the responses, I admitted in the first line of my OP that I have a huge political bias. I'm not unbiased on this subject.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

It only took so long because people act like invoking Hitler is a bad argument, even when the analogy is obvious.

Right. In case anybody else couldn't follow along I wasn`t suggesting the Republicans are as anti-gay as the Nazis were anti-Semites. I'm just saying there's a point where where one issue ought to override all the other issues even if you generally agree with the rest. Gay rights are important to me, but I'm not gay. I can't imagine that I'd ever support people who hate me for who I am even if I agreed with them about decreasing non-military spending and cutting taxes for rich people.

I agree with this. If the Dems changed a single policy in their national platform, I could often have voted for them. But that issue is so fundamental, so important and violative of basic human rights, that I can't simply overlook it. I don't mean that as a tu quoque--I understand completely how the issue of gay rights could, for someone else, exist as such a right, something that could not be brushed aside.

I think that's a rational reaction as long as that's really how you feel about the issue. Honestly the only people I don't understand in the abortion spectrum are the ones who are opposed to it, but not strongly. Like, "yeah... I think it's akin to murdering babies, and I'll vote against that pro-choice guy on Tuesday as long as it's not raining.... but that's as far as I'm willing to go."

[Least Original User Name Ever]

If you want to look at the question honestly, it comes down to money and mobilization of voters. The Republican Party has a lot of money and connections, and, in some cases and circles, completely out-organized the Democratic Party. It finds/manufactures issues that matter to some people and pushes the importance of those wedge issues and keeps them in the public view/puts them back up just in time to mobilize voters to make calls/write letters/vote.

After a certain subset of the population starts trending towards voting for that party, it starts to feed into itself (this party cares about Issue X, clearly the other party doesn't listen to us/care about Issue X like we do, so we have to vote for this party) even though the issue may not be big nationally; in some cases, for the electoral math, it doesn't have to.

[astro]

People tend to vote for the individual and Republicans can often field a better candidate than the Democrats. Not every Republican idea is silly and not every Democratic idea is solid gold. I have voted on both sides of the fence over the years. I'm conceited enough to believe that most people are like me and are not wildly polarized and can cross the fence if they believe in the merits of particular candidate.

I belive that illegal immigration should be taken a lot more seriously. I believe that DADT in the military is absurd and immoral, but I also understand the structural problems in dealing with it. I believe that US military has no business occupying as many bases as it does across the world. I believe that the US public is being ass raped by big pharma and the insurance industry. I believe that teacher's unions are huge impediments to educational reform. I belive that the US public is being ass raped by universities and their ever increasing fees that vastly outpace inflation. I believe that a lot of socially progressive academic fields are utterly useless.

I really don't care if a seeker of office is labeled "R" or "D". If they speak to me most effectively on the issues I care about they have my vote.

[Kevbo]

If you want to look at the question honestly, it comes down to money and mobilization of voters. The Republican Party has a lot of money and connections, and, in some cases and circles, completely out-organized the Democratic Party. It finds/manufactures issues that matter to some people and pushes the importance of those wedge issues and keeps them in the public view/puts them back up just in time to mobilize voters to make calls/write letters/vote.


This.

If you can spend enough on TV ads, you can control the message. So you make sure that your actual policies benefit the wealthy, and they give you lots of money which you spend promoting wedge issues that manipulate the masses, but that the wealthy really don't care much about one way or the other....God, guns, and gays mostly..but the dems have backed off a bit on the gun control stuff, so now they have to attack the brown people. They sell a return to a Beaver Cleaver America that never was, reduced taxes only to the wealthy, smaller government just kidding and morality they don't practice.

The best of the GOP doners is Rupert Murdoch, Fox News being essentially a 24/7 propaganda outlet for the GOP. Actually, that is not quite the truth. It is closer to the truth to say that the GOP is the government division of Fox News. There are actual betting pools around how long it takes for any politician to walk back criticism of Rush Limbaugh.

As long a Democrats are pro-choice, anti-gun, and pro gay rights, well over 50% of the population won't vote for them...of course well over 50% of the population won't vote for Republicans either, which would create a math problem if anywhere near 100% of the population were to vote. The tactic of the GOP is not to motivate people to vote for them, but to vote against the God and gun hating, gay and wetback loving, tax and spend liberals.

Back to the OP, keep in mind that all politics is local. People hate congress, but generally like their congressman. They can hate the GOP, but rationalize that their republican Senator isn't really one of them. If an aspect of the party platform won't fly in one area, the candidate can distance themselves from that, their voting record notwithstanding:Plenty of footage of GOP congressman cutting ribbons at projects funded by the stimulus bill they voted against.

NM currently has an all Democrat pro-gun congressional delegation as an example from the donkey side. And really, with only two viable parties, it has to be this way.

[SteveG1]

Considering the inflammatory nature of the OP, I'll just observe that fortunately, the disease of liberalism is not as widespread as liberals seem to think it is. Hopefully, we'll excise that cancer from the country in the next election.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Seriously? The party that "sells" what the most people want to hear and is most convincing, wins. Sometimes it's the Reps, sometimes it's the Dems. It's all about saying and promising what people want to hear. Sell it, spin it, try to keep a straight face. Once you can fake sincerity, the rest is easy.

[Chronos]

Quoth John Mace:Quoting her who must not be named:

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises." Isn't that exactly what the OP is doing? His premises lead him to a false conclusion (that Republicans wouldn't win elections), and so he (with the help of us) is trying to figure out where his premises went wrong.

And who's "her who must not be named", anyway?

[sleestak]

Quoth John Mace:Isn't that exactly what the OP is doing? His premises lead him to a false conclusion (that Republicans wouldn't win elections), and so he (with the help of us) is trying to figure out where his premises went wrong.

And who's "her who must not be named", anyway?

Ayn Rand.

Let the screaming and wailing begin.

Slee

[John Mace]

Isn't that exactly what the OP is doing? His premises lead him to a false conclusion (that Republicans wouldn't win elections), and so he (with the help of us) is trying to figure out where his premises went wrong.

No. The OP asks us why Republicans keep winning elections even though they have insulted >51% of the electorate. That last clause is stated as a given.

[DanBlather]

People tend to vote for the individual and Republicans can often field a better candidate than the Democrats. Not every Republican idea is silly and not every Democratic idea is solid gold. I have voted on both sides of the fence over the years. I'm conceited enough to believe that most people are like me and are not wildly polarized and can cross the fence if they believe in the merits of particular candidate.

I belive that illegal immigration should be taken a lot more seriously. I believe that DADT in the military is absurd and immoral, but I also understand the structural problems in dealing with it. I believe that US military has no business occupying as many bases as it does across the world. I believe that the US public is being ass raped by big pharma and the insurance industry. I believe that teacher's unions are huge impediments to educational reform. I belive that the US public is being ass raped by universities and their ever increasing fees that vastly outpace inflation. I believe that a lot of socially progressive academic fields are utterly useless. This is pretty much how I feel, except for DADT which I think the Commander in Chief has to have enough balls to just lay down the law and let people get over it.

[Chronos]

Ayn Rand.

Let the screaming and wailing begin.

Slee Thanks; I was having a hard time thinking of controversial women of a philosophical bent. But the fact that Ayn Rand happened to say that doesn't change the truth of that statement, so no screaming and wailing is called for.

[DirkGntly]

No. The OP asks us why Republicans keep winning elections even though they have insulted >51% of the electorate. That last clause is stated as a given.
To quote William Buckley:
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

[Damuri Ajashi]

How do you form a winning coalition year after year by insulting 51%+ of the country?

The electoral system combined with creative gerrymandering.

[Sevastopol]

To quote William Buckley:
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”Cute, but there's a limit. Shocked and offended that the "other views" are that theirs should not be heard. Shocked and offended that their view is misrepresented. Shocked and offended that factual accuracy is unimportant to the other views. Well, that's the right shocked and offended in my book.

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Without getting caught in the hubris of this thread and the inflammatory verbiage of the OP, a great many people are single-issue voters. In the last Presidential election, many people who were dissatisfied with the policies of GWB and the direction he took America still voted for McCain. Most of these people did so because they could *never* support a candidate who (or who they percieved) would support reproductive rights (to use probably the most prevalent single-issue).

[Perciful]

Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present
generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make good use of
it! - letter to Abigail Adams, April 26, 1777

-- John Adams (1735-1826) Second U.S. President

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present
generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make good use of
it! - letter to Abigail Adams, April 26, 1777

-- John Adams (1735-1826) Second U.S. President

And this relates...how?

A man sometimes starts up a patriot, only by disseminating discontent, and propagating reports of secret influence, of dangerous counsels, of violated rights, and encroaching usurpation. This practice is no certain note of patriotism. To instigate the populace with rage beyond the provocation, is to suspend publick happiness, if not to destroy it. He is no lover of his country, that unnecessarily disturbs its peace.
~~~Dr Samuel Johnson, 1774

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. .
~~~Dr Samuel Johnson, April 7, 1775

[Bricker]

Not really. I believe most people in those demographics vote GOP barely 10-30% of the time. Except the decent college part, I have no idea.

But most secularists, non-whites, poor people, intellectuals, etc tend to be non-GOP. That doesn't make them pro-democrat, just not really members of the GOP.

Hispanic here, generally a GOP voter and always a registered Republican.

[Fear Itself]

Hispanic here, generally a GOP voter and always a registered Republican.How is this inconsistent with Wesley Clark's statement? Clearly, "most " need not include you to remain true.

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

How is this inconsistent with Wesley Clark's statement? Clearly, "most " need not include you to remain true.True although as far as I can recall Hispanics have always leaned Republican more than other minority groups.

(Aside: We will see how that holds up as the GOP continues to alienate them...)

[BrainGlutton]

The Democrats need to become more populist.

Specifically, the Democrats need to become more economically populist. Respond to the needs of the working and middle classes. The only way to bring an abundance of good high-wage jobs back to America is to develop a real industrial policy and revive manufacturing in the U.S., even if that requires protectionism -- even, dare I say it, if it requires a bit of dirigisme. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme)

As I said back in 2005, the Dems need to embrace economic populism, downplay cultural liberalism. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=312933) Cultural liberalism will win out eventually anyway, time's on our side there.

[Kevbo]

True although as far as I can recall Hispanics have always leaned Republican more than other minority groups.

(Aside: We will see how that holds up as the GOP continues to alienate them...)
(bolding mine)

Snerk.

[John DiFool]

Specifically, the Democrats need to become more economically populist. Respond to the needs of the working and middle classes. The only way to bring an abundance of good high-wage jobs back to America is to develop a real industrial policy and revive manufacturing in the U.S., even if that requires protectionism -- even, dare I say it, if it requires a bit of dirigisme. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme)

Well, the House just upheld its end of the bargain (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/its-recess----do-you-know-where-your-wedge-issue-is.php) today; the bill in question would eliminate tax breaks for companies which ship jobs overseas.

[gonzomax]

True Republicans constitute about 20 % of the electorate. The Repubs exploit wedge issues to get people whose interests are better served by the Dems to vote Republican. They capture the anti-abortion crowd every election. They get the NRA /gun nuts to vote with them by convincing them the Dems are after their guns. Note of course, when they are in power ,they ignore those issues.
They also are deep into selective voter suppression. They have cried voting fraud every election, and attempt to boot the poor and the blacks off the voter rolls.
The Repubs also dominate the media. They have talk radio ,Fox News, and corporation domination over the rest of the news. The surprise is how difficult it is to get a Democrat in office.

[Bricker]

DanBlather, that was an insightful post.

No kidding.

Er... I mean... Democrats, do not listen to DanBlather and his crazy talk! Crazy, I tell ya!

[Saint Cad]

Because there is no viable third party and the Democrats in their own way are every bit as bad as the Republicans.

[Airbeck]

"the Democrats in their own way are every bit as bad as the Republicans"

cite?

[nolonger lurking]

I was a conservative with Republican sympathies through college, but am now quite liberal. I'll take my shot at this, recognizing that I am repeating concepts upthread.
There are a number of reasons for which the Republican party has been successful out of proportion to the population to which the OP believes they should appeal. The following attempts to describe the possible reasons a Republican might be elected while we look at the population and claim that they would be better served or represented by a Democrat.
Note that this does not include reasons like
"They like or recognize their current representative"
"The Republican candidate professes positions more advantageous to them"
"The Republican candidate is better looking, more charismatic, or otherwise attractive"
Also not included, and in my opinion not helpful:
"Fraud or confusing ballots"
"They hate themselves"
"They are evil/racist/sexist"
"They are stupid"

1) Commitment and Organization- I think this is the biggest single influence. The people who go out to vote in every election, who volunteer for their party, and who generally comprise the backbone of most local party organizations tend to be older. These older people tend to be more conservative. It doesn't matter a bit if 60% of the electorate is against a candidate/issue when 51% of actual voters are for it. The groups most likely to support liberal causes (students, poor people) have very low turnout and high transience, and often seem to channel their energy and anger into protests and internet screeds, but not into organization and voter turnout. The disparity between eligible and actual voters is especially evident in low-turnout midterm and special elections. I think Obama took the strongest shot in my short political memory against the unbalance of committed ground-level supporters by compiling massive lists of donors and volunteers and trying to keep them active through the political "off-season".

2) Money- Relative to their usual opponents, Republicans favor policies that benefit people with lots of money or other capital. These people recognize this, and it pushes them towards voting for and supporting Republicans. Some people feel less secure in their pocketbooks than in their status with regards to marriage rights or workplace discrimination, and vote accordingly. Either they feel that Republican policies will benefit them and the country, or the feel that their likely gain outweighs the small or uncertain effect of government policy on the economy. I don't think that anyone who votes Republican for economic reasons believes that they will destroy the economy. Because money is speech, people and groups with deep pockets can shape the overall media climate, influencing opinions and driving turnout in favor of well-capitalized interests.

Here I start getting more speculative and long-winded.

3) Self-Serving bias- People who perceive themselves as successful are likely to view their success as the result of their own abilities. They discount luck and social advantages, and consider success to be won regardless of or even in spite of government or social programs. To these people, government is irrelevant or even harmful, and they could do better without it. Of course, they would get to keep more money after taxes if they didn't have to fund "useless" programs.
People who perceive themselves as doing poorly attribute their lack of success to outside factors. While luck is often blamed, government taxation, regulation, or other intervention is also a popular target for people who believe they deserve or have earned better than their lot in life. To these people also, government intervention is irrelevant or harmful, and the party that promises less regulation and taxation is likely to get their vote. Of course, when the Republicans hold the reigns of power, this cuts both ways; people want less government, but blame their problems on the government and the majority party.

3b) Just-World Hypothesis- People want the world to be fair. The world is not entirely arbitrary in its allocation of success- on average people who work hard and are smart tend to do better than people who are lazy or dumb. But the world is also not perfect- cheating and gaming the system are "bad" but rewarded, and crime sometimes does pay. People make up their mind as to how fair the world is, but have significant motivation to err on the fairer side. This is a source of comfort in what might appear to be an arbitrary and capricious world. A common tenet of modern religions is that unfairness against you will result in a reward (often in heaven or future lives) and the same thinking results in New-Age concepts like those in The Secret. The ugly flipside to the just-world hypothesis is success worship and victim blaming, also evident in American culture.
If the world is inherently fair, there is little incentive to redistribute wealth and fund social safety nets. In a just world, the people who would use such safety nets must deserve their misfortune. Combined with the self-serving bias, a belief in the basic fairness of the world implies future success even to people who are disadvantaged or discriminated against. Republicans have a major advantage in running against taxes and social welfare programs because most people believe that they will be improbably successful in the future, and want to protect their potential future assets. Democrats are unlikely to motivate people who are satisfied with their well-being by implying that they may in the future need a safety net, because this has an unspoken implication that a person is incompetent or deserving of misfortune. Appeals to the plight of children (who are not considered responsible for their station) and family members (who may be incompetent or bad people but deserve mercy anyway) are possible but not as immediately impactful as appeals to self-image.

4) Wedge Issues- The most prominent of these are abortion, gay rights, and gun-control. There is a strong narrative surrounding these issues that appears to me to be astonishingly well-controlled by Republicans. Many religious people believe (and are explicitly told in church) that, when given a choice, they must vote for the candidate who (more strongly) supports the restriction of abortion. At the same time, Republicans appear to make only token efforts to seriously restrict abortion at the federal level and don't trigger a strong response by abortion rights supporters. Because Democrats and liberals are largely on the side of the status quo, they can't summon the same level of energy and money from the abortion issue.
Gay rights and gun control are state-by-state issues that both parties cover based on their local environment. In the last decade, Republicans have driven lots of voters to the polls by implying or outright declaring that Democrats will enact polices that threaten marriage or seize guns. These appeals are unlikely to backfire, because if nothing happens, it can be attributed to the valiant opposition. They have intelligently run national campaigns in areas in which gay marriage and gun control are unpopular, while running local campaigns in areas more supportive of gay marriage and gun control. Democrats are picking up on this- they ran a national race against Bush in 2008, but have moved to running local races in 2010 in more conservative areas.

Here I run off the rails into my own musings.

5) Discipline- The Republican party has it, the Democratic party doesn't. Because no member agrees with their party on every issue, a disparity in party discipline means Republicans can count on a few Democrats voting with them on any contentious issue, while Democrats can cound on unified Republican opposition. This inflates the effective size of the disciplined party, making Republicans look strong while Democrats look weak.
Incumbents who have the backing of their party enjoy a major advantage in their bids for reelection. Of course, the national party would rather have a disobedient member than an opposition member in a given seat, but if they commit to (successfully/effectively) primarying anyone who doesn't toe the line they can force junior members especially to conform to the party orthodoxy on "important" votes. If they don't often have to follow up on the threat, it doesn't hurt their numbers too much. This can backfire, and I believe it hurt Republicans who were unable to distance themselves from the party/president in 2008. It appears that Democrats tolerate significantly more dissent in their ranks, making them unable to sustain or break filibusters in the senate, and leading to more conservative bills in both houses. If they can avoid looking ineffective, this may enable Democrats to credibly run local races in 2010 to maintain as much of their majority as possible.

5b) Orthodoxy and National Issues- Related to discipline, and enforces it. For someone who wants to see results on a national level, following the lead of the Republican leadership in the primary may result in a more electable candidate in the general than the primary voters would choose. Faced with a Democrat chosen by the primary voters for positions rather than electability, the Republican might win in a left-leaning district. Until recently, liberals appeared to be much more willing to stay home or vote third party when underwhelmed by the Democratic candidate. Conservatives have been better at painting races as national referenda (though again, the Democrats hit a home-run on this subject in 2006/2008). By talking about congressional races using terms like "Obamacare" and "the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Agenda," they tap into the fact that, while most people approve of their representatives, approval for congress as a whole and government in general is (generally) very low. The Tea Party movement imperils this course of action somewhat by tapping that discontent to fuel high-energy primary challenges that are conservative to the point of questionable general electability.

First post in Great Debates.

[SenorBeef]

First post in Great Debates.

Well, stick with it. You're very good at it.

[Saint Cad]

"the Democrats in their own way are every bit as bad as the Republicans"

cite?

Should I quote the same cites as the OP did?

How about the idea that successful people should be punished for making money.

How about the advocacy for a socialist state that is creating more welfare such as UHC.

How about the open-border policy that Mexicans should be allowed to come across our border at will.

How about pro-choice (I am actually pro choice but for many people abortion is state sanctioned murder - and not in a good way like the death penalty)

[gonzomax]

Should I quote the same cites as the OP did?

How about the idea that successful people should be punished for making money.

How about the advocacy for a socialist state that is creating more welfare such as UHC.

How about the open-border policy that Mexicans should be allowed to come across our border at will.

How about pro-choice (I am actually pro choice but for many people abortion is state sanctioned murder - and not in a good way like the death penalty)

You are kidding ,right? The tax rate is the lowest since 1950. How is that punishing successful people? Nobody advocates punishing successful people, but it would be nice if they paid their fair share without loopholes and offshore bank accounts.
The open border policy ,which does not exist, would be a bonus for businessmen who hire and exploit the Mexican work force. How would it help Dems, especially since the Spanish population leans right?

[A.Selene]

Good post NLN. I have one nit to pick, and it's one that consistently needs to be picked around here. Fighting ignorance and all that.

2) Money- Relative to their usual opponents, Republicans favor policies that benefit people with lots of money or other capital. These people recognize this, and it pushes them towards voting for and supporting Republicans. Some people feel less secure in their pocketbooks than in their status with regards to marriage rights or workplace discrimination, and vote accordingly. Either they feel that Republican policies will benefit them and the country, or the feel that their likely gain outweighs the small or uncertain effect of government policy on the economy. I don't think that anyone who votes Republican for economic reasons believes that they will destroy the economy. Because money is speech, people and groups with deep pockets can shape the overall media climate, influencing opinions and driving turnout in favor of well-capitalized interests.

It's a common meme around here - hell in all the political discourse I've heard - that the Democrats are beleaguered on all sides by the rich and powerful Republicans. But it's just (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php) not (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php) true (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/industries.php). Big money supports the Democrats just as much, if not more so, than the Republicans.

[pbbth]

This is a free country, you know. You are free to leave it.

This is not quite accurate. While the US is absolutely a free country and would not try to stop you from leaving most other countries will not let you move there because you feel like you don't want to live in America anymore. The places that most democrats would agree with politically and feel comfortable living in (Canada, England, etc.) do not want immigrants any more than the US does and don't allow you to move there unless you have a job lined up or are marrying a citizen. Even then there are a lot of people who have a job lined up in Canada and they aren't allowed to take it because the Canadian government requires that if a job can be done by a Canadian it must be done by a Canadian. Sure, the US isn't going to stop you from leaving but there is no place to go if you want to leave without jumping through some really difficult hoops.

[Sage Rat]

The answer to the OP is that financial matters come before everything else when it comes to politics. The Republican party has positioned itself as the party of fewer taxes and smaller government. So long as that's true, they'll continue to win as many votes as they are today.

[nolonger lurking]

Thanks A.Selene, I hadn't seen that.

What I must confess to, on rereading a post that took embarrassingly long to compose, is that I have conflated two separate effects.

1) People alienated by Republican social positions might vote "against their interest" if they think they will save enough on taxes to be worth it. I can't back this up with numbers, but it's not a very strong claim. I was just trying to lay out an explanation for Republican votes from people the OP believes have been alienated by republicans. If someone can find a reliable breakdown of gay and straight voters by wealth, I'd love to see it. Ditto for race and wealth.

2) I was under the impression that Republican-leaning groups had more money with which to influence elections. This has been true in the past (http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/ptytots.php?cycle=2008), but appears to be less so recently. We will have to see if Democrats stay even in less favorable political climates.

I have no great explanation for my belief that these two were bound up in each other, but high-dollar donations statistics from the same site (http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/DonorDemographics.php?cycle=2008&filter=A) seem to support the idea. I looked at the contributions of donors giving $200-$2300 and donors giving $1000+ and they lean republican for all years before 2008. I wish I had better data to work with, because I would like to see PAC money broken down by contributor and corporate money separated from employee money. As it is, I am willing to withdraw this claim.

I will try to be a little more careful in the future, and refrain from assuming a money advantage until I see what results from the Citizens United decision.

[athelas]

"How can Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him!" If you think reality is weird, it's more likely that you're out of touch with it. On an online echo-chamber, it's even more likely.

[elucidator]

Its quite true, the Democrats are no longer sucking hind dick when it comes to Big Money. For this we may thank the three-legged menshevik centrist "business-friendly "Clintonistas, who have moved so far to the center that the Dems are just Tweedledum compared to Tweedledumber, Republican Lite.

And I say its spinach, and I say to hell with it!

[Evil Captor]

True although as far as I can recall Hispanics have always leaned Republican more than other minority groups.

(Aside: We will see how that holds up as the GOP continues to alienate them...)

Subtract Cubans and the numbers go way down, I bet.

[septimus]

First post in Great Debates.
...
Many religious people believe (and are explicitly told in church) that, when given a choice, they must vote for the candidate who (more strongly) supports the restriction of abortion.

It was a great post! A few comments.

Others complain that Money doesn't favor GOP, that donations are roughtly equal. But I'm very doubtful. Legally reported donations may be roughly equal, but what if you consider, e.g. FoxNews' budget?

Religion: that some voters were told in church they'd be excommunicated or sent to Hell for voting Kerry should enrage Americans.

Finally, the terms of debate play an important role. Right-wing opinion-makers are cynics with clear propagandizing goals, and not above prevarication. Progressives, on the other hand, tend to be intellectuals who, like scientists, will equivocate in the interests of truth. Yet equivocation doesn't work for voters with limited attention span.

Consider Kerry's defeat in 2004. Voter interviews make it very clear he lost due to "questions about his military record." Anyone who spent ten minutes objectively researching Kerry's military record would realize he was the hero, Bush the shirker. But voters didn't have ten minutes to spare; they just had right-wing loudmouths droning from the TV in the background while doing household chores.

[elucidator]

Well, yeah, but the pump was primed. A lot of Americans had awoken to the truth about Iraq, but many were still stuck in the emotional rut they had been beaten into, that Iraq equaled 9-11 against unpatriotic Americans and people who unfairly criticized The Leader. To run against Our President was already suspect, it didn't matter what his true war record was, the Swift Boaters had them before they said hello.

Add to them the people who hated him for his Viet Nam stance. They will forgive you for criticizing America, they won't forgive you for being right.