Well, there’s a legitimate point there when you’re talking about things like the 2000 presidential election or the 2012 congressional election. In both those elections, the Democrats got more votes than the Republicans even though the Republicans won the elections. So I think you can make an argument that these were “structural reasons” defeats rather than a repudiation of the Democratic platform.
That may be how you view the people who vote for Democrats, but I don’t know anyone who fits that description. Me, members of my family, co-workers, etc., that I know are are not “tribal” (whatever that means), not low information votors, and not single issue. We actually prefer the platform and practices of the more progressive party. Strange, I know
And it’s funny because you’re saying this seriously.
Apparently, I see more conservative MEN making decisions about the whole abortion debate … and mandating ultrasound legislation.
I find it quite “easy” and pathetic of these men making decisions for women’s health since they themselves will never have to undergo … rape and getting pregnant.
A bit of googling the term brings up lots of stories about Kenyan politics and this gem posted on a right-wing site called The PJ Tatler.
The term seems to be a way of vaguely injecting both race and unthinking herd behaviour into a discussion. Note that the piece I linked to is big on supposition but short on facts (okay, there really are no facts at all).
In that piece, the presence of “tribal voting” absolves the Republicans of responsibility for their electoral losses:
[
](Tribal Voting Behavior Means The Republican Party Could Go The Way Of the Whigs – PJ Media)
In other words, the term “tribal voting” is a bullshit meaningless term meant to deride, stigmatize and stereotype the people it is applied to.
Well, of course, “tribal”. There is no more natural form of human organization, its a survival mechanism that goes right to the bone. One monkey is a dead monkey.
And the party’s other core values at this point are sexism, racism, homophobia, and so on. They keep on blurting out embarrassing sexist and racist and homophobic comments because they genuinely are that bigoted; they aren’t just putting up an act to attract bigoted voters. They spent decades pandering to such people for votes, attracting them to the Republican party; and now, the bigots are the ones in charge. They’ve moved up the ranks and displaced most of the cynical manipulators with True Believers.
As far as the thread title goes, a fair number did seem to realize why they lost right after the election, when the shock broke through their shell. But they swiftly retreated back into denial of reality.
The election was just like 2004. The GOP lost in 2012 for the same reason the Democrats did in 2004: a mediocre to poor incumbent managed to make the race a referendum on his opponent.
[QUOTE=adaher ]
When Democrats don’t have to pretend to be conservatives to win national elections, I’ll believe that.
Democrats win by saying, “Those are the crazy right-wingers! We’re the reasonable right-wingers!”
[/QUOTE]
I guess I don’t understand your point. Is it more important in your mind to vote Republican regardless of how crazy or to vote for whatever party’s policies make the most sense?
You skipped 2008. What poor excuse will you come up with for the loss then?
YOu should also vote based on competence and honesty.
But anyway, I do vote Democrat about a third of the time, precisely because both parties attempt to cater to voters like me. When the Democrats stop catering to me, then I’ll believe that the country has changed, because it will be a sign of boldness on their part that currently is non-existent.
2008 was a backlash against eight years of poor Republican governance. Just as 2010 was a backlash against two years of Democratic overreach.
I am trying to envision a world in which the various groups who vote Republican could possibly not be characterized as tribal. Unless tribal means race and only race, it cannot be done.
But I will gave the noxious Ms Adams credit for the following:
As I’ve said before, this is the future. I don’t believe it is the near future, because Texas would need to have its districts redrawn and the first election under any possible new rules would be 2024. That gives the Republicans 11 years to undo its self-branding as the Party of Intolerance. There is not a particle of evidence that will start before 2016, so in reality it will be much less time.
It could happen in a world in which the entire party works toward the goal. I can’t see it in a world in which most of the elected politicians, the loudest media voices, and the commenters on message boards think in terms of Democrats and tribal voting.
These predictions of the future are useless. Imagine trying to extrapolate the 1980 electoral map into 2012. Or better yet, the 1984 electoral map. Or even the 1988 electoral map.
Things suddenly got a little stable between 2000 and 2012 and all of a sudden hopeful liberals think that the trends will continue irregardless of events or the governing performance of the parties.
Now Texas, that’s just wishful thinking. The GOP actually did better in Texas in 2012 than in 2008.
Bullshit again. Every campaign is about the candidates. If a mediocre to poor Obama beat Romney, then what does that say about Romney? And if Romney beat every other Republican candidate, what does that say about them? And don’t forget every other Republican presidential candidate except one has lost in the last twenty years.
So, really, is George W. Bush the best the Republicans can offer America? Does every other possible Republican candidate rank behind him?
Romney was a politically weak candidate. The upcoming republican stars are not. The Democrats, meanwhile, with the exception of Hillary Clinton, just have a bunch of unexciting old white guys. There isn’t a young Obama-like candidate in the lot, unless you guys plan to rush Cory Booker into contention somehow.
I’m confused. So is Obama the most liberal president ever or is he just a moderate right winger? 
Obama ran as a moderate right-winger. He governs as a liberal. Not unusual, that’s how Senators usually end up going down, by being conservative in South Dakota and Montana but liberal in DC.
Which Senators, in your opinion, have done this?
If Romney was a politically weak candidate then why did he beat Bachmann, Barbour, Cain, Christie, Daniels, Gingrich, Huntsman, Johnson, McCotter, Paul, Pawlenty, Perry, Roemer, Santorum, and Trump? Were they all weaker than Romney? At what point does a lack of credible candidates become a reflection on the party?
As for 2016, I’ve been predicting Andrew Cuomo will get the Democratic nomination. Okay, he’s a white guy - but at 55, he’s not real old by Presidential candidate standards. If the 2016 Republican strategy is another round of “hope the other guy is more boring than our candidate” they better start working on a new plan for 2020.