I’m a little fuzzy on that part about how free market economics and lower taxes are good for poor folks. I know that the more comfortable folks find those arguments compelling, but did not realize they had such universal appeal. Perhaps you’ll explain that part?
Besides, even were it true, and I don’t think it is, why would they believe you?
But not to worry, you don’t need them, being so wildly popular with women, Hispanics, asians. And not to forget the vitally important Armenian community, where the Republicans have a crushing advantage.
The black base is diminishing as well. Hispanics and Asians are growing, Asians faster than Hispanics(and with 3 billion of them clamoring to get in, as opposed to only 1/5th the number of Hispanics).
There are many paths to victory when you’re only a couple points behind in Presidential races. They could do better among women. They could do a little better among African-Americans. They could do better among Hispanics or Asians. They could even do better among white males.
As a matter of fact, there’s no particular reason that the GOP can’t just get whites voting as a bloc the way African-Americans do. If they succeeded in that, they’d be the dominant party for a very long time.
If enough white women decide they are entirely comfortable with the Republican Party having jurisdiction over their Lady Parts, sure. See any indication that this is likely? Massive numbers of women suddenly saying “I can’t worry my pretty little head about this stuff, I’ll just let Louis Gomert make the decisions from now on! Whew, what a relief!”
FWIW, I think Democrats are over-optimistic to assume they are very likely to win the 2016 Presidential election. Betfair.com doesn’t seem to have a line on Rep-vs-Dem yet for the 2016 election, but of the five top individuals, four are GOP: Rubio, Bush, Christie, Ryan.
Yeah, I thought the Republican line was that way too many people (40-something percent, wasn’t it) already pay no income tax and have no skin in the game. How much lower can their taxes get?
Abortion views haven’t changed substantially for a long time, yet Republicans are being hurt by the issue. That would mean that it’s not the pro-life position that’s hurting Republicans, it’s the gaffes that make them look insensitive and chauvinistic.
And of course, with the nation divided down the middle on abortion, you can’t have two pro-choice parties.
Knowing that the sources of information they rely on **exist **to give them ready made insensitive and chauvinistic spin, I expect more “unenforced” gaffes to come in the future.
But it’s not like that’s overwhelming, or anything. 61% is only overwhelming when it’s blacks from decades ago.
And heck, even given that blacks do currently overwhelmingly support the Democrats, it’s still not true to say that Republicans don’t need them. Sure, a very small proportion of blacks support the Republicans, but without that small proportion, Bush would have lost in 2000. When elections are as close as they have been these past years, almost every demographic is significant, and you have to try to go for all of them.
Another thing that might hurt the Dems is if more progressives stop voting Democratic out of disgust for the way they have been treated. The Dem’s naked fealty to Wall Street might come back and bite them in the ass in 2014 and 2016.
As somebody who took courses labeled revisionist history back in the day when that word meant something specific - a younger set of historians were challenging Civil War history as written by southern sympathizers - I need to flag the usage of this term.
Saying that the Southern Strategy was a deliberate attempt by the Republicans to attract the racially-biased white Southern voters that the Democrats were abandoning is not revisionist. It is consensus history, and IMO totally accurate. It is the moral sin - no less a term is possible - that the Republicans cannot erase. They did not have to incorporate intolerance into an official stance of the party. They could have left those voters to make a choice between tolerance and tolerance. They did not.
Everybody in both parties understands what they did. Everybody with all shades of skin color understands what they did. That’s why majority blocks of voters vote as they do. Out of understanding, not misunderstanding.
Denying this is not revisionist. It is ugly and dishonest and self-defeating and a variety of words I can’t use here. You need to come to an understanding of your own. And so do other Republicans if this is a widespread belief rather than an idiosyncrasy of yours. This falsification of history will not be read by anyone as enlightenment. It will be read as what it is - hate speech.
That’s not a term I use lightly. Republicans have to acknowledge its truth, however painful, and make a conscious effort to repudiate that past. Not doing so will give the Democrats national dominance for a long time to come, but that’s a side issue. Not doing so will lead the country down a road of hatred similar to the 60s. We can’t live through that again. Yet you are calling for it. If you ask for a party built only around a common theme of hatred what outcome can you possibly expect?
What changed is that southern white racists were suddenly up for grabs. It’s not controversial, and only denied by a few, that the Southern Strategy was meant to capitalize on southern white racism for political gain. Not controversial at all. Maybe they used “conservative principles”, but the aim was to get southern white racists to vote Republican. Not revisionist- not even controversial.
And now it’s coming back to bite the party in the ass.
See the boldeed part? That’s where you’re wrong, and where the GOP is not just wrong but completely out of touch with reality.
It’s not the gaffes that make them look insensitive and chauvinistic, it’s that they are insensitive and chauvinistic and the gaffe is that they say something that reveals it.
Until you (and the GOP in general) understands the reality of the statements and the reaction to them, they’re doomed.
I so agree with this. If they didn’t believe it, they wouldn’t say it, repeatedly. Their biggest problem is that they keep saying it publicly. Their next biggest problem is they really believe what they’re saying.
This last election and the crap the right wing kept spewing out about abortion and other women’s issues (among other numerous things) was what finally drove me, a lifelong Republican, to hold my nose and vote for Democrats for the first time. I was tired of being so completely offended by my party, along with shaking my head at their utter stupidity in so many things they believe. I keep hoping they’ll wake up and drive the Tea Party and other offensive types out, but I keep getting my hopes dashed. I’m not sure I can ever register as a Democrat, but if the Republicans keep up with their nonsense and the Democrats can stay close to the middle, I just might, or maybe go Independent and vote Democrat until the Republicans shape up.
Don’t know how to parse the question of sincerity. If they believe it themselves, they are ignorant and thoughtless. If they don’t believe it themselves but say it because they hope we do, I suppose that’s worse, it carries the taint of cynicism. According to the philosopher Vonnegut, we are what we pretend to be and just because I cannot fathom why anyone would pretend to be a knuckle walking troglodyte doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
Speaking from the conservative wing of the exteme left, we don’t need you to become vaguely Democrat. We need an honest conservative party to mock, deride, and argue with a clear conscience without feeling like we’re engaged in dialogue with morons, which degrades us all.
You’re a Republican? You’re wrong, but so what? Be a Republican, do it straight and clean and honest, and you will elevate the discussion by at least that much, and encourage others to do so. Suit up and put on your game face. Time’s a wastin’.
The only reason you got “snarky” is because you were wrong to begin with.
No, it doesn’t, since the proportion of Whites-- whatever it was-- voting Democratic has no bearing on the proportion of Blacks voting Democratic.
Absolutely. Again, Blacks had been voting Democrat since at least the early to mid-1930’s, even though Democrats were almost unilaterally opposed to the idea of racial equality up until the mid-1950’s. You can see this is the voting patterns between Republicans and Democrats during the 1957, 1960 and 1964 Civil Rights Act (Democrats like to wave this away by trying to argue demographics). The Southern Strategy was about trying to maximize the vote in the largest demographic. It’s the exact same strategy Democrats employ today, only instead of doing it with Whites, they do it with minorities.
Goldwater was actually a champion of early civil rights legislation, and there aren’t any reports of him blatantly passing laws to either create a dependent voter/throw someone a proverbial bone.
Revisionist history at it’s finest.
Republicans did not bring up abortion; that was Democrats.
They did not bring up birth control; that was Democrats again.
The Democrats continued on with the “war on women” meme, even though it was rated as false so many times. It’s a wonder they were able to continue on with it. But that’s what happens when you have a populace who will lap up anything.
Exactly- the Republicans made a strategic choice to try and appeal to southern white racists. They knew they were alienating black people, but they thought the electoral advantage was worth it. And it was, for decades- but not any more- now it’s backfiring.