Will The Republicans ever figure out why they lost?

[Little_Nemo]

Okay, so there are some tentative suggestions.

@adaher

I hope that Republicans get on the gay marriage bandwagon. That’s where the wind is blowing, it’s the right thing to do, and sexual orientation should not influence voting in an ideal world. As has been pointed out, the reason Republicans don’t just clean up the white vote by like 50 points is because of single women, and also white gays. So take gay rights off the table as an issue.

In regards to women, I agree earlier in the thread with the guy who said that the gaffes aren’t mistakes in that the speakers really are that insensitive and chauvanistic. It’s not the pro-life stance that’s the problem, it’s the archaic view of womens’ role in society. So respect women better. It’s not like Republicans have always lost female voters, Reagan used to win them.

Good ideas but I see them more as damage control rather than progress. Basically, true or not, the Democrats already have the perception that they’re the party that supports gays and women. This has caused many gay and women voters to support the Democrats.

Getting the message out that the Republicans aren’t anti-gay or anti-women would stop this flow of voters from the Republicans to the Democrats. But it won’t necessarily reverse the flow and bring voters from the Democrats to the Republicans. You’re basically just leveling the field rather than creating an incline towards the GOP.

As I’ve noted, the Democrats already have the numbers on their side. They don’t need to win over new voters so they can afford to just hold their ground. The Republicans need to convert voters.

@adaher

In regards to minorities, the easiest short term solution is to continue to heavily promote minority candidates. Democrats have a weakness when it comes to minorities: Barack Obama excepted, they don’t run minorities in white districts. They tend to prefer minorities to only represent minority districts. Republicans not only run minority candidates in heavily white districts, they often win with them. They win with them statewide as well, and in the South of all places. A racist party wouldn’t run minority candidates in the South. The Democrats sure don’t except in minority districts. Long term, just continue to promote small government and federalism, and most importantly, color blind policies.

Well, I have to give you full points for suggesting a new strategy here. In the long term it could work if your premises are true. If the Republican party gets the reputation as the party that is more willing to run minority candidates, it could translate into minority support in presidential campaigns.

I have to question how quickly this policy would change things however. Let’s face facts, by nominating Obama, the Democrats have taken a lead on running minority candidates. The Republicans can’t simply say “Sure, they nominated a black guy for President. But we nominated five black guys for state legislatures.” Unless the GOP nominates a minority presidential candidate and the Democrats nominate a white guy, I don’t think this is going to turn the tide on minority votes in the Republican favor in 2016.

@adaher

What will actually happen, I believe, is that Republicans will continue to shift to the right and just try to be more careful about what they say. Meanwhile, the reformist wing of the party, which overlaps heavily with the Tea Party, is being handed a gift by Barack Obama’s machine approach to politics. Pushing reforms to the way government operates is always popular(it was a big part of the 1994 GOP landslide), and Obama pretty much failed or didn’t even try to live up to his promises on that count.

As I’ve said, the Republicans can’t sit back and rely on a strategy of hoping the Democrats will do something to lose the election. The Republicans need to step forward and take some active steps to win.

[F.U.Shakespeare]

@adaher

…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.

Perfect example of the effects of the conservative echo chamber.

[fumster]

@adaher

Republicans stuck to their principles, and found a way to sell those principles to southern voters.

Silly me, I thought that some Republican had once fought a war about the principle of “states rights” vs the role of the Federal government.

[Little_Nemo]

@fumster

Silly me, I thought that some Republican had once fought a war about the principle of “states rights” vs the role of the Federal government.

Ironic how the Republicans won that fight and then switched sides after their side won.

[Little_Nemo]

The only part of Exapno’s post I’d argue with is this:

@Exapno_Mapcase

With that in mind, go back and look at party history. It starts as we know it in 1860.

I’d push the start of modern political party history back to 1824.

Prior to that, political organizations were organized around two ideas: electing a candidate and running an administration. If an election was on the horizon, you’d find like-minded people gathering together to get somebody elected. And if their candidate won, they’d stick around to run the new administration. But if they lost, the organization would break up and disappear. Nobody saw any reason to maintain a political organization after the election for the side that lost.

1824 changed that. Andrew Jackson was one of the four major candidates who ran for President that year. He got the most votes but not the majority and the House of Representatives gave the Presidency to John Quincy Adams. Jackson and his supporters were very unhappy with this outcome. So they immediately began planning on getting Jackson elected in 1828 and didn’t break up their campaign organization like past losing campaigns had. They just stayed together and began working on the next election (and this was the founding of the current Democratic Party). This extra work paid off and Jackson was elected in 1828. As a result, other political factions saw that politics could no longer be regarded as a temporary situation - you needed an ongoing organization to work on future elections.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@iiandyiiii

LOL- let’s just say that since the 2012 election I’m not particularly confident in your analysis skills and judgment of what’s true and what’s not.

So that’s it? That’s your comeback? Well, color (hah!) me unsurprised. It’s not a very good comeback, considering the fact that I’m not the only one around here who has been wrong about something (but, you see, when liberals are wrong, they forget ever being wrong). Should I get to engaging in some absolute serious thread bumping?

If this is true, then you keep demanding proof of something that cannot be proven. It’s not controversial, though.

Wrong, since that’s not what I demanded proof of.

And I’ll stick with the statements of Atwater and Mehlman- for years, the Republican party tried to appeal to white racists and get their votes. This was smart politics at the time- there were lots and lots of white racists, but now the strategy seems to turn off more people than it attracts.

I like how you’ve continued to ignore any and all kind of evidence to the contrary, instead choosing to believe exactly what you want to believe, since it conforms to your already held beliefs. Around these parts, that’s called willful ignorance.

I don’t get why this is so hard to accept- Democrats don’t deny that in the past the Democratic party made efforts to get white racists to vote for them. But in the 60s the party leadership made a conscious choice (politically speaking) to walk away from racism and reach out to black people.

That’s, ugh… A nice spin at history. Democrats did no such thing.

Eisenhower (R) signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was stripped of it’s enforcement provisions by LBJ (D), and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which along with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1960, was supported by a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats (do I need to point out Senator Byrd’s hours long filibuster attempts?). George Wallace (D) won the governorship of Alabama going away in 1963 by proclaiming “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”, and again in 1970 by claiming that “Blacks wanted to take over Alabama”. Throughout the South, Democrats continued to win governorships rather consistently up until the 1990s, in many cases easily defeating their more racially sympathetic Republican opposition, and continued to dominate local, state and national politics in the area. The latter is the point you ignored earlier. Under no circumstance can you, with a shred of intellectual honesty, claim that the parties “switched”, considering how well the Democrats continued to do in the South up until the 1990’s and how well Republicans continued to do in the North up until the 1990’s. But, see. I forget who I’m talking to. Racism! or something or the other.

Apparently, all those “racist Democrats” didn’t get the memo, and kept on being “racist Democrats” until they died out.

So with the rather numerous white racists suddenly up for grabs (at least in national elections, as the data shows pretty clearly), it’s not surprising that the other major party reached out to them.

Where the hell are you getting your information? I swear. Facts are anathema to you guys and gals. Just because you can say something a gajillion times doesn’t make it true.

And pray tell, which data would that be? Regardless of what evidence is posted for you, you ignore it. You have posted any data. You make claim after claim based on what you “think” is true, not on what actually is. How hard is it to look shit up? It’s actually really easy. This paper, from 1983, looks at the change in voting patterns from the beginning of the 20th century and (apparently surprisingly) finds that the shift in Southern voting patterns is related to the economic development of the South and was occurring far before the 1960’s.

[iiandyiiii]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

And pray tell, which data would that be? Regardless of what evidence is posted for you, you ignore it. You have posted any data. You make claim after claim based on what you “think” is true, not on what actually is. How hard is it to look shit up?

Pretty easy- the presidential election returns from 64 to today (which I already referenced). There’s a stark difference between Democratic votes in the south before and after the 60s, and you comically ignore this. And even pretending that black voting results before the 60s are in any way a true indicator of black voting preferences (they aren’t, of course, because of Jim Crow), there’s still a stark difference between how black people voted before the 60s and after.

You’re the one ignoring the data, not me. It’s not even controversial.

[iiandyiiii]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

I like how you’ve continued to ignore any and all kind of evidence to the contrary, instead choosing to believe exactly what you want to believe, since it conforms to your already held beliefs. Around these parts, that’s called willful ignorance.

That’s rich, coming from you. Sure, economics were a factor for demographic voting shifts. But the absolutely massive and pretty abrupt difference in southern voting patterns in presidential elections is largely due to the national Democratic party’s embrace of civil rights. And the way the Republican party (predictably) took advantage of southern racist whites’ alienation from the Democratic party is called the Southern strategy.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@iiandyiiii

Pretty easy- the presidential election returns from 64 to today (which I already referenced). There’s a stark difference between Democratic votes in the south before and after the 60s, and you comically ignore this. And even pretending that black voting results before the 60s are in any way a true indicator of black voting preferences (they aren’t, of course, because of Jim Crow), there’s still a stark difference between how black people voted before the 60s and after.

You’re the one ignoring the data, not me. It’s not even controversial.

Holy shit, you’re dishonest. It’s like you haven’t looked at a presidential map, ever.

1968 was a blowout, and Republicans didn’t even win the most solidly historically Democratic states (those five went to George Wallace, the avowed racist and former and future Democratic governor of Alabama). Republicans didn’t just do well in the South; they did well in the north, the east coast, the west and the midcoast-- a stark reversal from 1964. This was mainly due to Nixon running an anti-Vietnam War campaign. 1972 was a similar story, except Republicans did better everywhere, winning every state they won in 1968 except for MA (49 in total). 1976, which was the closest election between 1968 and 1988, saw Carter winning nearly every Southern state, depending on how you choose to define them. 1980 was another blowout in favor of Reagan, 1984 was an even bigger blowout for Reagan and 1988 was a blowout in favor of Bush, who was helped by being Reagan’s VP.

Seriously. In four out of six elections during that time, Republicans won at least 40out of 50 states. They could have lost most every Southern state in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988 and still won the presidency. That’s how big of a blowout they were. Unless you’re going to argue that the “Southern Strategy” turned into the “Northern Strategy”, you’re going to have a hell of a time trying to mitigate the “other” reasons the Republicans were able to do well in presidential elections during that time. It wasn’t until 1992 that you see the red state/blue state divide of today you see take shape, and that was nearly 30 years after the “Southern Strategy”.

(Seriously. One of my previous links, which you ignored, has a graph which shows that Southern voting patterns slowly began to mirror presidential voting patterns sometime around the 1920’s, and for a while during the mid 1960’s to the early 1990’s, the South was close to the rest of the U.S.)

But never mind that. Presidential elections aren’t even half of the equation. There are local elections, state elections and Congressional elections; all three which continued to be dominated by Democrats up until the 1990s (unarguable). Take note how you didn’t even attempt attempt to acknowledge this point, or even the specific point of George Wallace continuing to be elected as a Democrat in the South while being an unrelenting racist and actually ran a damn campaign in which he really did “pander to White racist Democrats”. And won. In 1970. In Alabama.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@iiandyiiii

That’s rich, coming from you. Sure, economics were a factor for demographic voting shifts. But the absolutely massive and pretty abrupt difference in southern voting patterns in presidential elections is largely due to the national Democratic party’s embrace of civil rights. And the way the Republican party (predictably) took advantage of southern racist whites’ alienation from the Democratic party is called the Southern strategy.

Dude, why don’t you:

1.) Click on links provided and

2.) Actually look at a presidential election map. Just look at the difference between 1964 and 1968, for example. The north became more “red”, the east coast became more “red”, the Midwest and west became more “red” and the South became more “red”. It’s like you only want to look at the change in the South, and then conclude that it must have been because of the Southern Strategy, without taking into account that the** ENTIRE U.S.**, as when compared to the decades past, lurched red.

Seriously. What’s your excuse for the switch in voting practices in the North from, say, the late 1930’s to 1964, where they tended to favor the Democrat for president, and from 1968 to 1988, where they tended to favor the Republican for president? Racism?

[GIGObuster]

As your sources reported, it was not only racism, but of course you are ignoring that they also mention that racism played a part. The point that at least I’m making is that I do not see much of a movement to get rid of that racist element that still shows up.

Today's 'Racist Email From a Republican Staffer'

[twickster]

@iiandyiiii

That’s rich, coming from you.

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Holy shit, you’re dishonest.

Both of you, knock off the name-calling and accusations of bad faith immediately – or risk a warning for personal insults.

twickster, Elections moderator

[Ibn_Warraq]

OMG, I’d recommend against claiming that the 1968 Presidential election was “a blowout” if you want to be taken seriously.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@GIGObuster

As your sources reported, it was not only racism, but of course you are ignoring that they also mention that racism played a part. The point that at least I’m making is that I do not see much of a movement to get rid of that racist element that still shows up.

http://gawker.com/5291679/todays-racist-email-from-a-republican-staffer

It didn’t say “racism”; it said race. There’s a stark difference between trying to court a certain demographic, and being racist against another.

And for real.

If we’re going to get into a pissing match, then I present you with this.

Link

Buena Vista Township Clerk Gloria Platko is resisting demands that she step down after another local official, Interim Township Manager Dexter Mitchell (a Democrat), taped a phone conversation in which Platko referred to Township Supervisor Dwayne Parker (also a Democrat) as “an arrogant nigger.”

The 63 year-old Democrat later apologized for the “slip of the tongue,” but shockingly insisted that her use of the slur doesn’t make her racist, because she has “eaten Thanksgiving dinner with black friends at their house.”

@Ibn_Warraq

OMG, I’d recommend against claiming that the 1968 Presidential election was “a blowout” if you want to be taken seriously.

Why?

Nixon won 32 states and 301 electoral votes.
Hubert Humphrey won 13 states and 191 electoral votes.
George Wallace won 5 states and 46 electoral votes.

[iiandyiiii]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Holy shit, you’re dishonest.

Well that’s not very nice of you to say.

It’s like you haven’t looked at a presidential map, ever.

No, I just look at them without Republican historical blinders on.

1968 was a blowout <snip>

Before the 60s, the Democrats dominated the South in pretty much every election, with just a few exceptions. Even when Eisenhower won almost the entire country, the Democrats won the South. It changed after the 60s. Civil Rights was a big part of this. As Lee Atwater has stated, the Republicans made some subtle shifts in their rhetoric that was designed to capitalize on this.

It would have been surprising if they hadn’t tried to take advantage- the white racist vote (which was extremely significant back then) was up for grabs. Who would be surprised that one party tried to take it?

But never mind that. Presidential elections aren’t even half of the equation.

For the Southern Strategy, presidential elections were in fact most of the equation. Southern Democrats were different than the national democratic party- Trent Lott (and many others who later became Republicans) were Democrats for decades after Civil Rights.

None of your data refutes any of this- it just suggests some additional factors. Yes, economics and other kinds of demographics were factors, but the big one was Civil Rights and racism. There’s a reason why 85+ percent of black people have voted Democrat for President in most elections since then… I suppose you think they were duped. I think they had and continue to have legitimate reasons.

[Ibn_Warraq]

Had anyone claimed no Democrats are racist the above post would have a point.

Edit: referring to OMG’s post.

[iiandyiiii]

@twickster

Both of you, knock off the name-calling and accusations of bad faith immediately – or risk a warning for personal insults.

twickster, Elections moderator

Taken onboard.

[iiandyiiii]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Nixon won 32 states and 301 electoral votes.

Obama got a lot more EVs than this in 2012- was Obama’s win a blowout?

[elucidator]

Well, there you have it, a national Democratic figure, a standard-bearer for the Party, totally a racist bitch! I mean, who hasn’t heard about the Buena Vista Township Council? Its right up there with the Throckmorton County Parks and Recreation Board!

Of course, the liberal media continues to suppress this bombshell.

[GIGObuster]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

If we’re going to get into a pissing match, then I present you with this.

Link

**iiandyiii **got it, no one pretended that there are no Racist Democrats but you are missing the point, the point I’m making is regarding the **sources **that several Republicans are using, the point is that by the time a Republican gets caught with the racist propaganda, many already shared that bit of racism among republicans and many Republicans did not came forward denouncing that, until the media got a hold of it.

As the link I pointed showed, it was caught because the Republican made a mistake on his CC. The point that I made early also stands, as my close relative reported to me (thinking that I was also against “white genocide”) there are many elements like that in the Republican camp and maybe you want to remain ignorant, but the one that you are defending here has relied already on sources that push that kind of trash.

There is a lot to clean up on the current Republican party.