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

KingGorilla wrote:

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

Depends. The College Republican report focused on Millennials, meaning people born between 1980ish and the early 2000s.

Bloo Driver wrote:

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.

You're kinda right, though abortion hasn't been a true front burner issue for voters in a while (with some key exceptions).

Public Policy Institute Report[/url]]Generally speaking there are only minor variations in priorities among demographic groups, and most subgroups rank abortion fourth out of five issues, with same-sex marriage generally ranking last. Two major exceptions to this pattern are white Evangelical Protestants, Republicans, and those who identify with the Tea Party. Members of these three subgroups rank abortion third behind the economy and immigration and rank the environment last.

There are significant differences in the salience of abortion between those who believe it should be legal and those who believe it should be illegal. Those who oppose legal abortion are three times as likely as those who support legal abortion to say it is a critical issue. Among those who say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, nearly two-thirds (65%) say that abortion is a critical issue. In contrast, people who believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, only 19% say that it is a critical issue.

While both parties have kinda self-selected on the issue of abortion, the extreme positions Republican politicians are adopting around abortion are largely unacceptable for most Millennials. Just look at the poll numbers for young voters on the first four theoretical situations about abortion and contrast that with recent GOP's positions on the same:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/dqIQTXU.png)

The GOP might be best served by largely shutting up about abortion.

The issue of gay marriage, though, is shaping up to be much more of a generational thing than one of politics. Not that that's going to help the GOP much, considering their current demographics.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/gu3jRNc.png)

It's clear that there's going to have to be a come-to-Jesus discussion within the GOP and front and center will be the so-called "culture war". That dog just ain't hunting with younger voters.

So, modern young Republicans are hard center Rockefeller Republicans? That's a real kick in the nuts for the Reaganistas...

Robear wrote:

So, modern young Republicans are hard center Rockefeller Republicans? That's a real kick in the nuts for the Reaganistas...

If I recall, the young voters are the most likely to be non-partisan independents, or soft republicans/democrats.

he main reason most of the people I know who are registered republican/democrat is to vote in primaries, not to vote republican/democrat.

Just more evidence that the current Republicans are aging out of the population.

Christie really shook things up by putting the NJ Senate seat up for Special Election. Both parties are now pissed at him (though I'm not sure where the Democrats indignation is coming from). I'm thinking it was a good move designed to appeal to voters.

Nevin73 wrote:

Christie really shook things up by putting the NJ Senate seat up for Special Election. Both parties are now pissed at him (though I'm not sure where the Democrats indignation is coming from). I'm thinking it was a good move designed to appeal to voters.

Nate Silver's take on it is that Christie probably doesn't think there's a viable Republican candidate, otherwise he'd have delayed the election until November.

And trending over the weekend has been the #GoodbyeGOP hashtag.

I figured this was the best place for this:

Can Rick Perry overcome last presidential run?

"I do think that what's going on here in Texas shows that Perry has courage and is a principled leader, and ultimately this is a good fight for him," said Republican strategist Rob Johnson, a longtime Perry loyalist.
Republicans involved in the presidential process, however, say there is very much political space for Perry in if he chooses to seek the GOP nomination in 2016 -- even in a crowded field of candidates that seems certain to include a number of fresh faces and outspoken conservative darlings.

"I think he can do it," said Bob Haus, who directed Perry's Iowa campaign in 2012. "He learned a lot of last time and would have to start much earlier than he did in 2012. Starting earlier would give him a lot more time to debunk any critics and win people over again. He still has an incredible success story in terms of luring business to Texas and economic growth. He still has got this great story to tell."

Wow. They still really don't get it, do they?

Well, to be fair, you'd expect a Perry campaign manager to say Perry should run. Dude's gotta eat.

If Perry runs, I think it'll be a very strong barometer of how much the Republican Party learned. If they embrace him, then yeah - nothing.

I can see the ads now: "Perry, brave enough to fight for oppression."

He'd have to start much earlier than he did in 2012? Jesus Christ. The last thing the Republicans need is a longer primary process because that always boils down to an out crazy the crazy person contest.

It's like a political tragedy of the commons and game of prisoner's dilemma all rolled up into one. The actions that would help a Republican candidate get nominated are the very things that will hurt the party as a whole.

With no snark here, I'm honestly worried that some Perry's campaign advisers will be arguing that the odd behavior he displayed because of the pain meds was his real undoing and not the message itself and that if he can just get out there and keep on keeping on without zoning out in the middle of a debate then he's got a shot. While I have seen some of the Republicans moving forward and rethinking their positions, I'm still seeing a good portion that seem to be digging their heels in. Hopefully the next few election cycles will help weed out some of the outliers though I'm still concerned about a fanatic fringe that can have a far larger impact in elections than they should just because they show up at the polls.

Kehama wrote:

With no snark here, I'm honestly worried that some Perry's campaign advisers will be arguing that the odd behavior he displayed because of the pain meds was his real undoing and not the message itself and that if he can just get out there and keep on keeping on without zoning out in the middle of a debate then he's got a shot. While I have seen some of the Republicans moving forward and rethinking their positions, I'm still seeing a good portion that seem to be digging their heels in. Hopefully the next few election cycles will help weed out some of the outliers though I'm still concerned about a fanatic fringe that can have a far larger impact in elections than they should just because they show up at the polls.

I was about to type that someone like Perry wouldn't have a shot in the national election and that I'm fine with social conservatives throwing their money at a doomed campaign. But then I reread your last sentence and gave pause. GWB got elected (twice!) and he's cut from the same cloth as Perry.

Does he simultaneously run for governor and president, though? The last few cycles, that has not ended well for candidates. There are Republican stances that would help him nationally that would kill him in Texas-anti immigrant, anti Latino type things. And the flip side is also true, if he gets positive on immigrants and Mexicans, he loses a lot of other Republicans-the wall building sniper tower type.

The anti healthcare, anti woman, anti lgbt, anti abortion plays well in Texas, but not well nationally. And that is, in itself a mixed bag, he lost a lot of Republican support due to the HPV vaccine mandate.

Kehama wrote:

With no snark here, I'm honestly worried that some Perry's campaign advisers will be arguing that the odd behavior he displayed because of the pain meds was his real undoing

Wait what? Was that the cause of his "oops" moment? That changes things. If he makes a big deal out of it, he can get the endorsement of born-again druggies (Bush) and enthusiastic pill-heads (Limbaugh) all in one fell oop.

Kehama wrote:

Hopefully the next few election cycles will help weed out some of the outliers though I'm still concerned about a fanatic fringe that can have a far larger impact in elections than they should just because they show up at the polls.

There doesn't seem to be any major party that offers an alternative to a militarized, surveillance-oriented, highly-corporate, elite-favoring, make war-whenever-we-feel-like-it approach to governance. Modern governance, whether the republicans or democrats are in charge, seems very fringe to me.

The difference is that the 'fringe' view is the one favored by our elites, and because they have so much money and power it, by definition, it isn't considered fringe.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Kehama wrote:

With no snark here, I'm honestly worried that some Perry's campaign advisers will be arguing that the odd behavior he displayed because of the pain meds was his real undoing

Wait what? Was that the cause of his "oops" moment? That changes things. If he makes a big deal out of it, he can get the endorsement of born-again druggies (Bush) and enthusiastic pill-heads (Limbaugh) all in one fell oop.

It's an excuse. The Texas political system breeds idiots like this. They're insulated from their own decisions and actions and are only responsible to men who think ten gallon hats are a political statement. When they get out of Texas, their lack of political seasoning and inability to talk to anyone other than Texas oil men is generally exposed pretty quickly.

Really? The Texas guy in the Oughts had a pretty good run...

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7676102656/hA6C0F1EB/)

Figure this ought to be shared.

Related, from Tom Toles blog last Friday:

Yes, the conventional wisdom has settled on the fact that the modern GOP is doomed because of its nihilism and short-sightedness and obstructionism and is caught in a death spiral of an ever-shrinking ever-more-intransigent base of aging white guys.

And we also read that the GOP could well win the Senate in 2014. That would give them both houses of Congress. Add in the Supreme Court for two-out-of-three branches of the government, and there you have a mighty spry-looking death spiral. So now we get to wait around for years waiting for the long arc of history to bend toward justice. Pull up a chair.

Link. And in 2016 we'll be hearing all about how Hillary Clinton was always able to work with republicans in the senate and will create a new era of bipartisanship, so she should be president and yada yada yada.

Funkenpants wrote:

Related, from Tom Toles blog last Friday:

Yes, the conventional wisdom has settled on the fact that the modern GOP is doomed because of its nihilism and short-sightedness and obstructionism and is caught in a death spiral of an ever-shrinking ever-more-intransigent base of aging white guys.

And we also read that the GOP could well win the Senate in 2014. That would give them both houses of Congress. Add in the Supreme Court for two-out-of-three branches of the government, and there you have a mighty spry-looking death spiral. So now we get to wait around for years waiting for the long arc of history to bend toward justice. Pull up a chair.

Link. And in 2016 we'll be hearing all about how Hillary Clinton was always able to work with republicans in the senate and will create a new era of bipartisanship, so she should be president and yada yada yada.

Way to miss the point, Mr. Toles. *sarcastic golf clap* The GOP may very well continue to win local/state elections (surprise, guess what Reps and Senators are decided in?)... but at the national level, demographics continue to move against them... Especially as they continue to be obstructionist, and continue to make themselves look bad with issues important to growing demographics.

I don't get your reaction here. All he's pointing out is the contradiction in the conventional wisdom, and questioning this idea that liberals have that obstructionism will sweep republicans out of office.

If you've got different numbers that will show changes that will lead to a massive shift in congressional races in 2014 and 2016, please post them.

Polling more than a year before an election is somewhat fruitless. Later in the summer next year is when the senate and congressional races will be determined. I see no cessation to the anti incumbent furor in the US, which does speak ill of the Senate Majority for Democrats, but just as ill for the Republican Majority in the House. I do not think there is anything such as a safe seat when we still have no budget, the wars are still draining the budget, and government services have been seriously downgraded.

Redacting my previous statement as it seems this guy is trying to be humorous;while I read your quoted section as one of "Watch out, we're coming back and we're gonna kick the Democrats in the nads with exactly the same strategies that have had us in this so call 'death spiral' to begin with".

I don't see it as a nad kicking so much as taking advantage of quirks in our system to block legislation they don't like. Toles' fear is that we're going to see more of this situation for a long time.

Funkenpants wrote:

I don't see it as a nad kicking so much as taking advantage of quirks in our system to block legislation they don't like. Toles' fear is that we're going to see more of this situation for a long time.

Pretty much. I see the Texas GOP gerrymandering those dirty hispanics out of voting rights for at least the next 10 years.

KingGorilla wrote:

Polling more than a year before an election is somewhat fruitless. Later in the summer next year is when the senate and congressional races will be determined. I see no cessation to the anti incumbent furor in the US, which does speak ill of the Senate Majority for Democrats, but just as ill for the Republican Majority in the House. I do not think there is anything such as a safe seat when we still have no budget, the wars are still draining the budget, and government services have been seriously downgraded.

It's not so much about polling as it is where these elections are taking place.

IMAGE(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/07/15/us/politics/newsens2014/newsens2014-tmagSF.png)

source: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/senate-control-in-2014-increasingly-looks-like-a-tossup/#more-40702

It wouldn't take a lot of imagination to see all of Louisiana, North Carolina, Arkansas and Alaska going for Republicans. But Democrats just don't have any seats to win in blue states. The one flip that there getting is from a temporary appointment (NJ). In addition, a bunch of Democrat senators in red states retired this cycle. So while there may be a wunder-candidate or two out there who defy the odds, this one is largely down to political boundaries.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...

I think the GOP will split into two parties after 2016. We'll have the Republican party and the Freedom party that is home of the tea baggers.

Ulairi wrote:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...

I think the GOP will split into two parties after 2016. We'll have the Republican party and the Freedom party that is home of the tea baggers.

I think it will be much more likely that moderate conservatives will have to split and form their own party and the Tea Partiers will keep both the Republican name and the supporting political machinery. They are the GOP now (and have been for years).

And I don't think it will happen after 2016. It will only happen after the redistricting from the 2020 Census and, even then, it will only happen after the Republican Party continually tanks during national elections. As long as they have an excuse--such as the popular myth that the GOP lost the White House in 2012 because white working-class male voters didn't come out to support Romney--they're going to continue to double down on the crazy, extremist positions.

OG_slinger wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...

I think the GOP will split into two parties after 2016. We'll have the Republican party and the Freedom party that is home of the tea baggers.

I think it will be much more likely that moderate conservatives will have to split and form their own party and the Tea Partiers will keep both the Republican name and the supporting political machinery. They are the GOP now (and have been for years).

And I don't think it will happen after 2016. It will only happen after the redistricting from the 2020 Census and, even then, it will only happen after the Republican Party continually tanks during national elections. As long as they have an excuse--such as the popular myth that the GOP lost the White House in 2012 because white working-class male voters didn't come out to support Romney--they're going to continue to double down on the crazy, extremist positions.

Pretty much this.

The fact that the last dozen or so "leaders" of the GOP have been teabaggers or all toop willing to pander to the tea party demonstrates precisely how little currency the moderate Republican brand has.

At best, it will become a rump party. More likely, moderate Republicans will find themselves without representation outside the increasingly conservative Democrats.