Sorry if this question has been asked before. Just as the subject line says. Are the Republicans likely to reap big rewards for their obstructionist policies, or will people get so fed up with it and throw many of them out of office next year?
It will reap rewards among the faithful & allied supporters, and alienate many others.
It will succeed as long as they deliver the message that everything is the fault of the Democrats. Essentially, they’ve learned that they can lie to the electorate, and their lies will be eaten up like candy. The lies have just gotten more and more outrageous, and still, they have not plumbed the bottom of what the electorate will believe.
A poll taken earlier this year had 45% of Republicans saying that Obama was not born in the United States.
Putting forth the bullshit message that the Democrats are entirely and completely responsible for the obstruction in Congress will be a piece of cake.
These “others” you speak of, who are they supposed to vote for?
Democrats or nobody.
Remember though, we’re talking about a “backfire” on Republican candidates. So some how you need to get people that are pro-life to first become alienated, and then decide to vote for a pro-choice candidate. Feel free to insert what ever hot topic you want in there, guns, same sex marriage, etc. We’re talking about people alienated to then vote against their beliefs.
If it’s the case where they simply don’t vote, there still isn’t much in the way of blow back, since it’s unlikely enough subsequently shrink what ever gap they had in the previous election. What worries me most is that this form of obstructionism isn’t new. How many people voted for them last time that NOW decide they’re tired of obstructionism?
It’s going to succeed, and succeed in grand fashion. The vast majority of republican voters are either so focused on a few social issues (guns, abortion, gay marriage) that they don’t care about the rest and would never vote for a pro-life, anti-gun, pro-gay politician, or are so brainwashed by outlets like fox news that they’ll think it’s the democrat’s fault. Sweeping generalization? Yes. Mostly accurate? Unfortunately, also yes.
Compounding the issue is really just that the Republicans only have to block the government from doing anything effectively. That’s all they have to do to be able to propagate the message of “big government doesn’t work”. And guess what: they can do that with a majority in the house, 41 seats in the senate, or a president in the white house; they don’t need a majority anywhere. This makes it incredibly easy to pin it all on the democrats: “they had a majority in both houses, and the president was backing it, and yet they STILL couldn’t pass sensible legislature!” Which is of course bullshit, but not something most people are likely to look into. It’ll lead to a further polarization of the political process, and this is something which, again, can only benefit the goal of obstructionism.
I doubt that all Republican voters are pro-life so they won’t all have a complete aversion for the Democrats.
Also, there are probably quite a lot of reasonable, fair-minded people who traditionally vote Republican. It is these people who are likely to become alienated by the increasingly psychopathic behavior of their party.
Maybe I don’t understand the term “obstructionism”, but the way I take it is that if they obstruct (vote against/block) legislation that their constituents oppose, they will be rewarded for it.
I look to see how my representatives vote on important legislation and let them know that I will cast my next ballot based on that information.
. . . AND as long as the Democrats can’t figure out how to counter that message. For too long, it seems, the Dems haven’t had the ingenuity (or whatever it takes) to take control of the message, and set the terms of the debate. Why not, I keep wondering! I Pit the Dems for that.
Obstructionism in this case is more obstructing virtually all legislation including legislation that is fairly benign, legislation that needs to be passed, or opposing your own ideas just to obstruct. And for all intents and purposes obstructing because you want your opponent to be seen as ineffective so you win the next election. If Obama had a long list of accomplishments and was putting the country back on track that would make the GOP look bad. But both parties do it to a degree (the dems not nearly as much as the GOP though). Supposedly (no idea if it is true) Ted Kennedy opposed a Nixon universal health care plan because he didn’t want Nixon to get credit for it.
As an example the US currently has a ton of federal judgeships that are not filled due to obstructionism. The GOP obstructs the appointment of judges, far more than was done in the past.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/03/07/176980/borrowing-judges/
Another example (of opposing their own ideas) would be their support of concepts like a supercommittee, the dream act, the health insurance mandate, etc.
http://www.americaforpurchase.com/republicans/republicans-consistently-vote-against-own-policies/
Basically, at this point, anything Obama does that can be seen as a legislative accomplishment or that could get the country on the right track will be seen as a victory for Obama, the democratic party and the philosophy of statism. So they have to stop any legislation, even if they have to oppose their own ideas or obstruct for absurd reasons, or obstruct knowing they will lose eventually anyway.
Will it succeed? It has so far. The dem base stayed home in 2010 and the election went heavily GOP as a result (2010 was due to turnout differences between the parties, not a resurgence of conservative ideology).
The only real drawback is the 10-20% of the electorate who lean GOP but who are also fairly moderate and informed. They might not like it, but I don’t know if it’ll actually make them not vote GOP anymore.
It probably will succeed. To a point. The average American voter barely has the brains to pull their pants down before using the toilet and has the attitude that anything that’s complex (i.e. can’t be boiled down to a one-sentence soundbite and/or has more than one causal link) isn’t worth listening to.
However, I think that the Republican party is overplaying their hand. People pay more attention to the news when the link to them is direct and immediate (i.e. a payroll tax increase or Social Security checks not being sent out) and they also pay more attention during a presidential cycle. The time to do that is when people aren’t paying particular attention because it plays into the lazy and facile narrative of ‘they’re both equally bad!’ or ‘all politicians are crooks’. So obstructing federal justices is good, obstructing payroll tax holidays is bad. Because that’s how the idiot American voter rolls.
Because Fox won’t let Democrats give their side? Because Rush and Beck and who else won’t share their airwaves with Democrats?
As long as a sizeable chunk of the population listens to only one news source with an agenda and refuses other sources because “they’re part of the liberal conspiracy/ bias” then how can you reach them with facts?
You’re sort of right. Rush and FOX News won’t share their airwaves with the Left’s point of view just like NPR doesn’t go out of its way to report the Tea Party’s side of the story. Both sides complain that the media are slanted in the other’s favor.
The truth is that people self-select the point of view they want to hear, the one that agrees most with their own worldview. Lefties listen to NPR and watch Jon Stewart, and Righties listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Sean Hannity. There’s not much of a moderate voice in the media because moderation is boring and doesn’t sell TV/radio ads.
Are you seriously comparing NPR and Rush/FOX?
Quick quiz: one of the media organizations you mentioned doesn’t actually try to sell ads. Which one is it?
Based on the recent election it seems to have backfired already.
Your definition of “news” and another person’s definition of “news” may vary.
You’re nitpicking and missing the point of my post entirely.
Of course. But are you seriously going to claim that both sides here are equal? Need I bring up the figures regarding Fox News, NPR, and information regarding the Iraq war? Even if I let you keep your (horribly false) assumption that NPR is just as biased as Fox, there’s a big difference: NPR is factually correct.
I never said NPR was as biased as FOX, nor do I think they are. All I said was that NPR generally reports news that is of interest to the Left aand FOX, the Right. Am I incorrect in that statement?
I love this attitude coming from the left. Please spread it around your friends/family/colleagues. Far and wide. It will insure further decline of the left.
You see, in spite of what you think, those voters do have enough brains to know who has nothing but contempt for them. And that’s you. So you won’t be getting their vote.