Not Dead Yet?: The RNC Autopsy of the 2012 Election

I think it is very telling that in 2012, the best Republican Candidate to rise up was one who had not held an elected office in over 5 years. He was also in the running with Santorum, also out of office for 5 years, and Newt Gingrich, over a decade.

I still hold out a naive hope of John Huntsman.

The Republican Party needs an issue for 2014, and they need a bigger issue for 2016. I am not thinking that abortion, desecrating the rights of women, and gays is the way to go in the next 2 elections.

If nothing else, Rand Paul had a wedge that peaked too soon with the Drone Program. States are asking for more drones, by the way.

The big 2014 issue will be the austerity, the lack of significant spending reform, likely continued sluggish economic recovery, and jobs. Who gets that blame, and who is believed to have the solutions will get the House, which will set the stage for 2016.

Bloo Driver wrote:

At the risk of starting the insanity of an Election 2016 thread, I'm actually kind of curious exactly who even looks remotely like a Presidential candidate for the Republicans at this moment. I don't mean that as a snide attack. I seriously cannot think of anyone who has the sort of backing, history, or support to get the whole party behind them eventually, whereas the Democrats have several such candidates.

There are a few. Just go for all the candidates everyone kept asking to run last time, who said they wouldn't. Chris Christe for example. Now whether or not the republican base will want a more moderate candidate is going to be a big question. 2016 will probable be more brutal that 2012. If they lose again it's gonna be a nightmare for them. Still everything is tilting the democrats way, as every election will be harder then the last for the Republicans.

Jayhawker wrote:

I will say that the Obama Administration is doing everything in their power to bring a Republican back to the White House in the next election. They are close to RRoD status right now.

Can the Republicans run a legitimate candidate?

Yeah right now they are being hit with three different government scandals at once. The IRS, snooping on reporters, and Benghazi. Now how valid these each are and who to blame is a whole other argument. Doesn't matter though, this is the first time there is some actual dirt on/around/near Obama. It's going to be like blood in a shark tank for a while. Now whether or not something actually happens or this will just be used to score points with the base? Will see.

Hey at least you can't say it's boring.

I think what is going on at the IRS is a tempest in a teapot. The real scandal is the dimwits in congress made the IRS the regulators of campaign finance. I am not sure how many enemies will be made by the IRS investigating the PACs and Super PACs that a lot in the country already distrust and dislike.

master0 wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

At the risk of starting the insanity of an Election 2016 thread, I'm actually kind of curious exactly who even looks remotely like a Presidential candidate for the Republicans at this moment. I don't mean that as a snide attack. I seriously cannot think of anyone who has the sort of backing, history, or support to get the whole party behind them eventually, whereas the Democrats have several such candidates.

There are a few. Just go for all the candidates everyone kept asking to run last time, who said they wouldn't. Chris Christe for example. Now whether or not the republican base will want a more moderate candidate is going to be a big question. 2016 will probable be more brutal that 2012. If they lose again it's gonna be a nightmare for them. Still everything is tilting the democrats way, as every election will be harder then the last for the Republicans.

I'm iffy on Christie. Unless something drastic changes in the Party, there's no shot. As you say, it remains a question, but I dunno. As the topic of the thread goes, though, it's possible the RNC has learned what they did wrong. If I were to say something about it today, though, I'd say they won't do anything with that knowledge. It really feels like there was a moment in the last election where the Party and its base were both aware of a possible moment they could be not crazy. But then when it became a race to win, they fell back on familiar tactics. Maybe 2014 will show something else.

I think the reason why the GOP can't field a decent candidate has little or nothing to do with the actual candidates and everything to do with the platform. They could field the (American born) resurrected Jesus Christ and Mahatma Gandhi on a ticket, but their platform would still be straight up batshiitake crazy.

The problem they are running into is the same problem that the Dems ran into in the 1980's. They have a worn out platform and are looking for messianic or charismatic candidates to save them from their much needed wander in the wilderness. But it really doesn't matter how charismatic their candidate is. There is no polishing that turd.

Bloo Driver wrote:

At the risk of starting the insanity of an Election 2016 thread, I'm actually kind of curious exactly who even looks remotely like a Presidential candidate for the Republicans at this moment. I don't mean that as a snide attack. I seriously cannot think of anyone who has the sort of backing, history, or support to get the whole party behind them eventually, whereas the Democrats have several such candidates.

Excuse me!!

IMAGE(http://media.salon.com/2010/11/chris_christie.jpg)

Christie has been consistently branding himself as a not-crazy pragmatist, making amends with the Democrats in NJ, and had a lap-band surgery in March. The only open question is who's going to be the VP on his ticket.

The problem, from this Canadian's point of view is that while moderation will get him the presidency, it will get him booted from the primaries. From all that I heard and read (remember, Canadian poster here) crazy wins over moderate in the primaries, or at least on the republican side.

Christie has been consistently branding himself as a not-crazy pragmatist, making amends with the Democrats in NJ,

Both basically disqualifying him from the "Who is the most conservative in every possible way that Republicans care about?" reality show also known as the primaries.

Hence my question, can they run a legitimate candidate? They are out there, but the powers that be either look for crazy or puppet. They have not had much of a use for independent thinkers.

Huntsman and Christie could both pull off great runs. But I don't think either would be trusted by the guys that gave Romney gobs of cash to line their pockets with tax cuts and corporate welfare.

If you want to be a conservative populist, you need to burn witches, books, and brown people.

Jayhawker wrote:

Hence my question, can they run a legitimate candidate? They are out there, but the powers that be either look for crazy or puppet. They have not had much of a use for independent thinkers.

Huntsman and Christie could both pull off great runs. But I don't think either would be trusted by the guys that gave Romney gobs of cash to line their pockets with tax cuts and corporate welfare.

If you want to be a conservative populist, you need to burn witches, books, and brown people.

Don't forget, he also spoke positively of Obama once and gave him a handshake. I'm surprised the Tea Party hasn't tried to impeach him yet.

Pablo Pantoja, the RNC State Director of Florida Hispanic Outreach, just switched his political affiliation to Democratic citing the GOP's culture of "intolerance and hate" when it came to Hispanics and the issue of immigration.

This comes on the heels of the ultra-conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation publishing a study claiming that the immigration reform bill being considered by the Senate will cost taxpayers $5.3 trillion.

One of the numerous problems with that study was one of the authors, Jason Richwine, had done his doctoral dissertation on how Hispanic immigrants had low IQs, that they "will have low-IQ children and grandchildren," and therefore any immigration policy should work to deny such people entry into the country.

Jayhawker wrote:

Hence my question, can they run a legitimate candidate?

Oh, I bet they can. Romney was one of the weakest, worst presidential candidates in my lifetime, and he still made it close enough that Obama needed high democratic turnout to win. Had Obama not been such a brilliant political operator, we might have been talking now about President Romney.

Funkenpants wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Hence my question, can they run a legitimate candidate?

Oh, I bet they can. Romney was one of the weakest, worst presidential candidates in my lifetime, and he still made it close enough that Obama needed high democratic turnout to win. Had Obama not been such a brilliant political operator, we might have been talking now about President Romney.

Not to mention, besides huntsman, Romney was the most moderate candiate of the group. That's not saying much, but I do imagine the next election will be quite different in tone.

OG_slinger wrote:

Pablo Pantoja, the RNC State Director of Florida Hispanic Outreach, just switched his political affiliation to Democratic citing the GOP's culture of "intolerance and hate" when it came to Hispanics and the issue of immigration.

This comes on the heels of the ultra-conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation publishing a study claiming that the immigration reform bill being considered by the Senate will cost taxpayers $5.3 trillion.

One of the numerous problems with that study was one of the authors, Jason Richwine, had done his doctoral dissertation on how Hispanic immigrants had low IQs, that they "will have low-IQ children and grandchildren," and therefore any immigration policy should work to deny such people entry into the country.

Wow... eugenics? Kind of thought Bioshock Infinite would be the last I'd seen of that for a good long while.

Demosthenes wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Pablo Pantoja, the RNC State Director of Florida Hispanic Outreach, just switched his political affiliation to Democratic citing the GOP's culture of "intolerance and hate" when it came to Hispanics and the issue of immigration.

This comes on the heels of the ultra-conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation publishing a study claiming that the immigration reform bill being considered by the Senate will cost taxpayers $5.3 trillion.

One of the numerous problems with that study was one of the authors, Jason Richwine, had done his doctoral dissertation on how Hispanic immigrants had low IQs, that they "will have low-IQ children and grandchildren," and therefore any immigration policy should work to deny such people entry into the country.

Wow... eugenics? Kind of thought Bioshock Infinite would be the last I'd seen of that for a good long while.

Not the first time that kind of argument has been made. Folks said that about the Chinese in the 1900's. It was the whole rationale behind the Chinese Exclusion Act, one of the darkest periods in American history.

It was also part of one side of the rise of family planning (women's health, contraception and abortion) services in the US. The idea was to keep the poor from breeding. (The other side of the issue was progressive, trying to keep the poor from being mired with children at an early age that would keep them in subsistence level incomes for the rest of their lives.)

I figured I should bring it up since honestly it befuddles me - but perhaps the news of the GOP's demise are overstated if a guy like Mark Sanford can get re-elected? On the more conservative boards I frequent, the attitude is that they'll vote for him as long as he's got an R behind his name and isn't a "RHINO" whatever that really means.

And while I may share some of his political views, a guy who conducts an affair on taxpayer dime and then ditches his family is a total oxygen thief who is not fit to be dog-catcher.

jdzappa wrote:

I figured I should bring it up since honestly it befuddles me - but perhaps the news of the GOP's demise are overstated if a guy like Mark Sanford can get re-elected? On the more conservative boards I frequent, the attitude is that they'll vote for him as long as he's got an R behind his name and isn't a "RHINO" whatever that really means.

And while I may share some of his political views, a guy who conducts an affair on taxpayer dime and then ditches his family is a total oxygen thief who is not fit to be dog-catcher.

Prognosticating on a special election, especially a special election in a heavily R district, is a mug's game

jdzappa wrote:

I figured I should bring it up since honestly it befuddles me - but perhaps the news of the GOP's demise are overstated if a guy like Mark Sanford can get re-elected? On the more conservative boards I frequent, the attitude is that they'll vote for him as long as he's got an R behind his name and isn't a "RHINO" whatever that really means.

And while I may share some of his political views, a guy who conducts an affair on taxpayer dime and then ditches his family is a total oxygen thief who is not fit to be dog-catcher.

There's definitely a large base of people who would vote for a toaster oven if it had the right Party signifier next to its name. The difference in a Presidential election, though, is that this works both for and against both sides, rather than it being an expression of how heavily one particular district leans. While I agree with you that anyone saying the GOP is effectively "dead" is overstating it a bit, the issue remains that they failed to really reach in and energize anyone beyond that "even a toaster" base. Arguably, they managed to actively alienate some of that base as well.

JD, remember, the "demise" of GOP is essentially a scenario where it loses the ability to put a majority in the House or Senate, and/or to elect a president. That's got nothing to do with it's health in any given district.

Even if the GOP does fantastically in it's strongholds for the next hundred years, it can't win national elections that way. As demographics change, you'll see the "always and only GOP" voters in places like Texas and Virginia be overwhelmed by citizens who are actively making choices, and who are insulted and offended by (or scared of) Republican talking points directed towards affluent white male evangelicals. Once one of those major red states kicks over to blue, an entire new strategy will be need, or the GOP will be ineffective on the national stage.

This in turn is part of why they are concentrating so hard on state elections, since one way to avoid this is to manipulate district layouts to cram all the newcomers into a small number of districts, while increasing the spread of red voters in others to outnumber them. Gerrymandering. Control of state supreme courts and state houses isn't bad either. As frustrating as all that is, it does show that they've gone from "vote for us because of our ideas" to being forced to structurally change the way elections work in order to win consistently, and even that could be wiped out by Texas going blue.

So from my perspective, they change, or they lose in the long run. We'll know by 2020 which path they picked.

On gerrymandering: the DNC would need a 7% win over the GOP to win Congress.

ThinkProgress wrote:

[In the 2012 election] Democratic House candidates earned 49.15 percent of the popular vote, while Republicans earned only 48.03 percent [...]. Nevertheless, thanks largely to partisan gerrymandering, Republicans have a solid House majority in the incoming 113th Congress.

[...]

In order to take control of the House, Democrats would have needed to win the 2012 election by 7.25 percentage points. That’s significantly more than the Republican margin of victory in the 2010 GOP wave election (6.6 percent), and only slightly less than the margin of victory in the 2006 Democratic wave election (7.9 percent). If Democrats had won in 2012 by the same commanding 7.9 percent margin they achieved in 2006, they would still only have a bare 220-215 seat majority in the incoming House, assuming that these additional votes were distributed evenly throughout the country.

It's a left-leaning source, though I seem to recall reading this on 538 as well. If anyone can punch holes in the article's math, I'd be very interested to hear it. If this is true, then your democracy needs some tinkering.

master0 wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Hence my question, can they run a legitimate candidate?

Oh, I bet they can. Romney was one of the weakest, worst presidential candidates in my lifetime, and he still made it close enough that Obama needed high democratic turnout to win. Had Obama not been such a brilliant political operator, we might have been talking now about President Romney.

Not to mention, besides huntsman, Romney was the most moderate candiate of the group. That's not saying much, but I do imagine the next election will be quite different in tone.

You guys are depressing the heck out of me.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm iffy on Christie.

I want that as a campaign button.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm iffy on Christie.

I want that as a campaign button.

I can put it on my desk next to the "Romney 2012?" button.

The College Republican National Committee took their turn poking over the corpse of the 2012 election. They recently issued a report, The Grand Old Party for a Brand New Generation, based on surveys and focus groups that concentrated on voters under 30.

Unsurprisingly, it was not a very flattering report.

Even while the author's tried to put a positive spin on the reports, it became clear is that traditional Republican issues and current GOP positions are out of whack with younger voters:

The Economy and Jobs
The report noted that the economy is exceptionally important to younger voters, but they simply didn't trust that the Republicans would do anything to actually improve it. In fact, a majority of younger voters thought that Republican economic policies, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a lack of strong government oversight, and deregulation--all GOP mainstays--were major causes of the Great Recession.

The GOP also lost with younger voters when the discussion is shifted from the economy to small businesses. The focus groups found that voter's perceived the GOP would only help a large corporation or someone with a lot of money and not a small business owner. Additionally, the GOP was viewed as largely silent in the national debate about student debt, something younger voters see as critical, especially since that debt gets in their way of starting a business.

Big Government and Spending
The report found that younger voters didn't respond too well to standard GOP rhetoric about big government and out of control spending. The "government is too big" message polled the worst with younger voters, who are much more concerned with spending and debt, and, more specifically, what things the government is spending money on.

This led to the awkward finding that 35% of those polled, including 49% of young independents, thought that the first place we should look to cut government spending was the military, a core GOP position.

Taxes
The GOP also fared poorly on the issues of taxes with younger voters. While the prime (only) GOP message on taxes is to cut them, 54% of young voters said that taxes should be increased on the wealthy.

Healthcare
While House Republicans were busy voting the umpteenth time to kill Obamacare, young voters found healthcare to be one of their top concerns and something that the Democrats did better by an almost two to one margin. Additionally, 44% of young voters said that basic healthcare insurance should be considered a right and that the government should pay for it if someone can't afford it.

Additionally, young voters recognized that current healthcare system "wasn't working well," something that contradicts the standard Republicans talking point about how it's the best system in the world.

Entitlement Reform
Banging the drum about the insolvency of Social Security and Medicare is a losing proposition for young voters as "many young people have already assumed these programs will go bankrupt before their retirement. In short, they have bigger problems in the short run that they want addressed."

Defense
Defense and national security are simply not viewed as importation with younger voters. Additionally, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were viewed in focus groups as something that was a net negative for the country and likely one of the key causes of the Great Recession. Many questioned why we need to get involved in other country's wars when all that money and resources could have been used to fix things in America. Others noted the conflict between the GOP's position on limited government spending and their spendthrift attitude when it came to the military.

Immigration
The report noted that immigration a key issue for younger voters, especially because they were less likely to be white than older voters. The key findings on immigration was that it was a complex issue and one where the GOP's typical position on immigration--build a wall to keep them out and deport everyone who got here--is much too simplistic and harsh for younger voters.

More than one third of young voters thought that there should be a path towards citizenship for immigrants, something the GOP has often spoken out against, and many in the focus group thought that GOP policies on immigration made them think less about the party or actually hurt them personally.

Abortion
Abortion is becoming less of a key issue for younger voters. Importantly, being "pro-life" isn't necessarily going to help the GOP get votes anymore. 41% of younger voters said they would be more likely to vote for a pro-choice candidate while only 25% said they would be more likely to vote for a pro-life candidate. A third of young voters said that a candidate's position on abortion would have no impact on their choice.

If that wasn't bad enough, the report takes the GOP to the woodshed for "unhelpful voices in our own ranks" taking extreme positions on abortion, ones that "conflate with issues around the definition of rape, funding for Planned Parenthood, and even contraception."

Gay Marriage
Put simply gay marriage has become a "deal breaker" for young voters. More than a quarter of them said they would not vote for a candidate if they didn't support marriage equality even if they agreed with the candidate's other policy positions.

The Republican "Brand"
By far, the most damning part of the study was an analysis of how younger voters viewed the GOP. When young voters were asked what words came to mind when they heard "Republican Party" they picked closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned. When asked what words least described the GOP young voters picked open-minded, tolerant, caring, and cooperative.

From the report: "When someone purchases a product, in some ways they are buying into the value system espoused by the brand. With a list of attributes like that, who would want to buy the product the GOP is selling?"

It's hard to read the report and say that all the GOP needs to do is freshen up its image and pick a more likable candidate. It's clear that there's a major break between the attitudes of traditional GOP voters and younger voters. The report also makes it clear that a great deal of the messages and positions the Republican Party has crafted over the past 30 years don't resonate as well--or at all--with younger voters.

I fervently hope that those issues are addressed. If they are then the Republican party would be one that I could definitely see myself voting for.

I doubt the Republicans will listen to young voters. Or as the McCain campaign called us "A bunch of nerds playing dungeons and dragons in our mom's basements."

If I am in my 30's am I still a young voter?

OG_slinger wrote:

Abortion
Abortion is becoming less of a key issue for younger voters. Importantly, being "pro-life" isn't necessarily going to help the GOP get votes anymore. 41% of younger voters said they would be more likely to vote for a pro-choice candidate while only 25% said they would be more likely to vote for a pro-life candidate. A third of young voters said that a candidate's position on abortion would have no impact on their choice.

If that wasn't bad enough, the report takes the GOP to the woodshed for "unhelpful voices in our own ranks" taking extreme positions on abortion, ones that "conflate with issues around the definition of rape, funding for Planned Parenthood, and even contraception."

Gay Marriage
Put simply gay marriage has become a "deal breaker" for young voters. More than a quarter of them said they would not vote for a candidate if they didn't support marriage equality even if they agreed with the candidate's other policy positions.

These two together are really interesting to me, because one of the major wedge issues of the previous decade(s) has been abortion. To me, political party affiliation seemed to always boil down to "pick your side about abortion, learn to tolerate or support the rest". I don't mean that as a 100% accurate analysis, but it seemed very often people just couldn't get over their abortion viewpoint when it came to voting. Seeing that might morph into gay marriage as something in a similar position is ... odd. I don't wanna say bad or good, it just makes me kinda want to dwell on it a bit.

Wow, that report pretty much sums up why I have barely looked at Republican candidates when they start speaking of each of those topics for the last two election cycles (when I was allowed to vote basically). Certainly something they should take seriously, though I'm expecting a double-down instead.

Thanks for the long write-up, OG!