Will The Republicans ever figure out why they lost?

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

In other words, it’s all hope and a prayer for Democrats. You might consider actually trying to persuade people, rather than just hope that people naturally gravitate towards you because of their ethnic, religious, or cultural identity.

That’s all she wrote, folks- I guess the Democrats have no chance. I sure hope the Republicans don’t take adaher’s advice and do nothing. I really hope they don’t. It would be terrible for the Democrats if the Republicans didn’t change their strategy. I hope they don’t change it. 'Cause that would be bad. For Democrats.

[jayjay]

Has anyone noticed that adaher’s and OMG’s scenarios, like the classic description of a physics experiment, depends upon an ideal Republican Party which bears little to no resemblance to the real-world GOP they have?

[running_coach]

@adaher

With a 30% advantage in the white vote, they win easily in 2016 and 2020 and don’t start to run into trouble until at least 2050, and probably not even then. Current demographic projections have whites pegged at 75% of the population in 2050. Democrats wishfully believe that because a third of those whites will be Latino in origin, that they won’t really be “white” in terms of voting behavior. That’s what Dems thought about Italians too, didn’t work out so well for them.

“Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better, or is this real?”

[adaher]

That’s just the thing. Democrats are doing nothing, because they expect demographics to just give them wins. No need to even engage in debate.

The Republicans, even when in the majority, have worked hard to set the terms of the national debate and succeed more often than not. You know this because liberals bitch about it all the time. So yes, the right is working hard to win the next election and the ones after that, by actually persuading people of the rightness of their ideology.

Much is made of the fact that Democrats have won 4 of the last 5 elections(if you count 2000). Why did that happen? Becuase the public became liberal? No. Because they had better Presidential candidates. The Democrats did not achieve the same level of success, and have actually gone backwards, at the Congressional and state level. Somethign which should not happen if demographics or the triumph of liberalism were in the offing.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

That’s just the thing. Democrats are doing nothing, because they expect demographics to just give them wins. No need to even engage in debate.

Democrats are pushing programs, like immigration reform, that they believe would both help the country and give them a political advantage. You know, basic politics.

[adaher]

That’s not persuasion though, that’s just interest group politics. The big problem with that is that the stability of the Democratic coalition relies on the various interest groups being willing to take one for the team because they believe in the larger goal. So African-Americans have to be willing to accept higher unemployment and lower wages for the sake of the Democratic Party winning more of the Hispanic vote, which is justifiable if African-Americans also believe in things like Social Security, gay rights, and reproductive rights. Except they don’t, so all immigration reform does is make African-Americans poorer and angrier.

In the short term of course, it doesn’t matter, but long term things change. African-Americans like a Democratic Party dominated by white liberals solicitous of their needs most of the time. They might not appreciate a Democratic Party dominated by Latinos whose main political goal is to bring in more Latinos. Even white liberals might not appreciate a Latino-dominated Democratic Party.

Not saying that will happen, just saying that you can’t predict how demographic change will go, and you certainly can’t predict how demographic change will affect the parties. Liberals keep talking about how it will change the Republican Party, but the way it will change the nature of the Democratic Party is just as, if not more, consequential. White liberals will not dominate the party for much longer and frankly I doubt many of you will like the result: a deprioritization of social issues and environmentalism in favor of rank economic populism of the sort we’d expect from a party made up mostly of former PRI supporters.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@adaher

In other words, it’s all hope and a prayer for Democrats. You might consider actually trying to persuade people, rather than just hope that people naturally gravitate towards you because of their ethnic, religious, or cultural identity.

How do you think the Dems won the popular vote, if not through persuasion? Has it been all hopes and prayers of late?

Anyway, I guess 2014, '16 and '20 will tell.
purple monkey dishwasher <- keywords to help me find this thread again, if it occurs to me to check adaher’s predictions against actual results.

[adaher]

The Democrats won because a charismatic black candidate resulted in record turnout among black voters, and direct pandering to Hispanic voters in 2012(by relaxing deportations) led to a spike in Hispanic turnout as well and historic margins for the Democratic candidate.

Whites not only didn’t support Obama, young people stayed home too. Obama lost millions of the young voters he won in 2008. Do the Democrats have a plan to get those voters back? Because Republicans are aggressively courting them while Democrats just assume their support.

So, what happens when a boring white guy is the 2016 nominee for President?

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

With a 30% advantage in the white vote, they win easily in 2016 and 2020 and don’t start to run into trouble until at least 2050, and probably not even then.

Again, you are ignoring how much of the GOP’s white conservative constituency will be dead by 2020. That 30% is not an advantage you can keep in the long run.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

That’s just the thing. Democrats are doing nothing, because they expect demographics to just give them win.

:dubious: Doing nothing?!

Two days after Obama’s inauguration, Bret Jacobson flew to Charlotte to attend the R.N.C.’s winter conference and sit on a panel devoted to discussing new digital techniques. “Bret’s presentation was one of the best-received of the panel, by far,” the seminar’s organizer, Ryan Cassin, told me. Still, Jacobson was disappointed to see only 30 people in attendance. President Obama, meanwhile, announced the previous week that his campaign juggernaut would be transformed into an advocacy group, Organizing for Action, that would use the vast social network amassed during the 2012 cycle to advance the administration’s policy goals. The Republican panel amounted to a first step — a baby step — while the competition was lapping them.

Jacobson did not stick around the next day to hear Reince Priebus declare to the conferees, “We’re the party of innovation!” Instead, he left his own panel early to catch a plane back to Washington. Calls were continuing to come into Red Edge’s office from establishment Republicans inquiring about Jacobson and Spencer’s cautionary slide presentation.

Jacobson wanted to interpret this interest as a good thing. But I could tell from his voice that the experience at the R.N.C. conference deflated his hopes about Republicans being well on the road to enlightenment. “My primary worry,” he told me without his characteristic levity, “is that I’m going to become the Al Gore of the right” — meaning, a forecaster of doom, appreciated and unheeded as the clever if somewhat lonely guy who told them so.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

That’s not persuasion though, that’s just interest group politics.

Again:

Mehlman, according to Bush campaign officials, persuaded Rove to invest heavily in microtargeting (a data-driven means of identifying and reaching select groups of voters), which helped deliver Ohio and thus the election. He advocated reaching out to minority voters both as Bush’s campaign manager and later as chairman of the R.N.C., where he also instructed his staff to read “Moneyball.” “I was like, ‘What does a baseball book have to do with politics?’ ” said Michael Turk, who worked for Mehlman at the R.N.C. “Once I actually took the time to digest it, I realized what he was trying to do — which was exactly the kind of thing that the Obama team just did: understanding that not every election is about home runs but instead getting a whole bunch of singles together that eventually add up to a win.”

[Bryan_Ekers]

@adaher

The Democrats won because a charismatic black candidate resulted in record turnout among black voters, and direct pandering to Hispanic voters in 2012(by relaxing deportations) led to a spike in Hispanic turnout as well and historic margins for the Democratic candidate.

Well, pandering is a form of persuasion, wot? At least when it works.

Whites not only didn’t support Obama, young people stayed home too. Obama lost millions of the young voters he won in 2008. Do the Democrats have a plan to get those voters back? Because Republicans are aggressively courting them while Democrats just assume their support.

We’ll have to see, I guess. I gather gay marriage will be less and less useful as a wedge issue, i.e. the states where it it most effective are states that would go red anyway. Maybe immigration can be the issue in 2014/16, or railing against the Affordable Care Act if it doesn’t succeed. At the very least, the Democrats seem more capable when it comes to using social media. The Republicans are several years behind - they’ll have to work hard to catch up.

So, what happens when a boring white guy is the 2016 nominee for President?

From which party? Or did you mean from both parties? I suppose a boring white guy Democrat versus, say, Bobby Jindal might prove interesting.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

White liberals will not dominate the party for much longer and frankly I doubt many of you will like the result: a deprioritization of social issues and environmentalism in favor of rank economic populism of the sort we’d expect from a party made up mostly of former PRI supporters.

Substitute PRD and I like that result.

[adaher]

You assume that voters maintain their attitudes for life. Democrats used to dominate among the Greatest Generation and won Baby Boomers handily. Those are GOP voters since 1980.

Now the GOP just has to figure out how to win the 2-3 million young voters who came out for Obama in 2008 but stayed home in 2012. Obama already took the first step for us by disappointing them. Now we just have to close the deal. And you know how you close the deal? By governing well. THe Republicans will win another Presidential election soon, if not 2016 then 2020, that’s just the nature of politics. If they use that opportunity to do a good job, they’ll have no worries.

[adaher]

@BrainGlutton

Substitute PRD and I like that result.

No doubt there are a lot of lefties disgruntled with the Democratic party’s relative conservatism on economic issues, but when I talk to liberal friends, especially white liberal friends who are middle class, they dislike the Republicans primarily because of their stance on religion, gays, abortion, environmentalism, etc.

A party mainly influenced by revolutionary economic ideologies is not going to have much appeal for middle class people of any race. In order for Democrats to stay viable, they’ll have to find a way to keep the party run by the limousine liberals, a challenging feat, and one that will create it’s own problems within the coalition even if it succeeds.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, if they do a good job, then… good.

Personally, I wouldn’t consider trying to restrict abortion or gay marriage or the teaching of evolution as a good use of an American government’s time, but I don’t get a vote in any case.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Whites not only didn’t support Obama, young people stayed home too. Obama lost millions of the young voters he won in 2008. Do the Democrats have a plan to get those voters back? Because Republicans are aggressively courting them while Democrats just assume their support.

Again:

They walked me through a series of slides showing the wide discrepancies between the two campaigns. “And just to make them feel really bad,” Jacobson said as he punched another image onto the overhead screen. “We say, ‘Just wait — this is the most important slide.’ And this is what kills them, because conservatives always look at young voters like the hot girl they could never date.” He read aloud from the text: “1.25 million more young people supported Obama in 2012 over 2008.”

<snip>

One afternoon last month, I flew with Anderson to Columbus, Ohio, to watch her conduct two focus groups. The first consisted of 10 single, middle-class women in their 20s; the second, of 10 20-something men who were either jobless or employed but seeking better work. All of them voted for Obama but did not identify themselves as committed Democrats and were sufficiently ambivalent about the president’s performance that Anderson deemed them within reach of the Republicans. Each group sat around a large conference table with the pollster, while I viewed the proceedings from behind a panel of one-way glass.

The all-female focus group began with a sobering assessment of the Obama economy. All of the women spoke gloomily about the prospect of paying off student loans, about what they believed to be Social Security’s likely insolvency and about their children’s schooling. A few of them bitterly opined that the Democrats care little about the working class but lavish the poor with federal aid. “You get more off welfare than you would at a minimum-wage job,” observed one of them. Another added, “And if you have a kid, you’re set up for life!”

About an hour into the session, Anderson walked up to a whiteboard and took out a magic marker. “I’m going to write down a word, and you guys free-associate with whatever comes to mind,” she said. The first word she wrote was “Democrat.”

“Young people,” one woman called out.

“Liberal,” another said. Followed by: “Diverse.” “Bill Clinton.”“Change.”“Open-minded.”“Spending.”“Handouts.”“Green.”“More science-based.”

When Anderson then wrote “Republican,” the outburst was immediate and vehement: “Corporate greed.”“Old.”“Middle-aged white men.” “Rich.” “Religious.” “Conservative.” “Hypocritical.” “Military retirees.” “Narrow-minded.” “Rigid.” “Not progressive.” “Polarizing.” “Stuck in their ways.” “Farmers.”

Anderson concluded the group on a somewhat beseeching note. “Let’s talk about Republicans,” she said. “What if anything could they do to earn your vote?”

A self-identified anti-abortion, “very conservative” 27-year-old Obama voter named Gretchen replied: “Don’t be so right wing! You know, on abortion, they’re so out there. That all-or-nothing type of thing, that’s the way Romney came across. And you know, come up with ways to compromise.”

“What would be the sign to you that the Republican Party is moving in the right direction?” Anderson asked them.

“Maybe actually pass something?” suggested a 28-year-old schoolteacher named Courtney, who also identified herself as conservative.

The session with the young men was equally jarring. None of them expressed great enthusiasm for Obama. But their depiction of Republicans was even more lacerating than the women’s had been. “Racist,” “out of touch” and “hateful” made the list — “and put ‘1950s’ on there too!” one called out.

Showing a reverence for understatement, Anderson said: “A lot of those words you used to describe Republicans are negative. What could they say or do to make you feel more positive about the Republican Party?”

“Be more pro-science,” said a 22-year-old moderate named Jack. “Embrace technology and change.”

“Stick to your strong suit,” advised Nick, a 23-year-old African-American. “Clearly social issues aren’t your strong suit. Stop trying to fight the battle that’s already been fought and trying to bring back a movement. Get over it — you lost.”

Later that evening at a hotel bar, Anderson pored over her notes. She seemed morbidly entranced, like a homicide detective gazing into a pool of freshly spilled blood. In the previous few days, the pollster interviewed Latino voters in San Diego and young entrepreneurs in Orlando. The findings were virtually unanimous. No one could understand the G.O.P.’s hot-blooded opposition to gay marriage or its perceived affinity for invading foreign countries. Every group believed that the first place to cut spending was the defense budget. During the whiteboard drill, every focus group described Democrats as “open-minded” and Republicans as “rigid.”

“There is a brand,” the 28-year-old pollster concluded of her party with clinical finality. “And it’s that we’re not in the 21st century.”

@adaher

So, what happens when a boring white guy is the 2016 nominee for President?

He wins. Because if 2012 is any indicator, the Pub field will not be boring, and not interesting in any good way.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

A party mainly influenced by revolutionary economic ideologies is not going to have much appeal for middle class people of any race.

It will if they fear losing middle-class status.

And guess what.

[adaher]

Now, as for Democrats’ social media and microtargeting advantages, that’s campaigning, not really the kind of thing I was talking about when I said “persuading”.

The right didn’t rise because of demographics or because of the latest campaign fads. They rose because of talk radio, right-wing media, book publishers. Getting the message out and explaining why conservatism is good. This movement wasn’t led by politicians, it was led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, a man we all love to hate, but one who has probably created more conservatives than anyone in the country.

[adaher]

@BrainGlutton

It will if they fear losing middle-class status.

And guess what.

Thus Democratic incentives are clear: make more poor people.