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

Mother Jones ran an interesting article on Groundswell, a somewhat informal group of prominent conservatives, who meet weekly and on a Google group to hash out a master plan--"a 30 front war seeking to fundamentally transform the nation" into a conservative paradise--as well as to come up with sound bites and hashtags to promote their views on a wide range of topics, such as gay marriage, immigration reform, etc.

The members of Groundswell have much more in common with the extremely conservative arm of the GOP and the Tea Party and generally hold the current leadership of the GOP in contempt. It's sad to see that these are the types of people who want to wrestle full control over one of our two political parties. It also makes me wonder how any moderate conservative still identifies as a Republican.

OG_slinger wrote:

Mother Jones ran an interesting article on Groundswell, a somewhat informal group of prominent conservatives, who meet weekly and on a Google group to hash out a master plan--"a 30 front war seeking to fundamentally transform the nation" into a conservative paradise--as well as to come up with sound bites and hashtags to promote their views on a wide range of topics, such as gay marriage, immigration reform, etc.

The members of Groundswell have much more in common with the extremely conservative arm of the GOP and the Tea Party and generally hold the current leadership of the GOP in contempt. It's sad to see that these are the types of people who want to wrestle full control over one of our two political parties. It also makes me wonder how any moderate conservative still identifies as a Republican.

For me, it is mostly out of laziness. Haven't gotten around to changing my registration, but i am more than willing to admit that the party has officially lost its mind.

It seems to me that part of the problem is most people; and this is pretty universal, not exclusively US, tend to identify with the party label rather than the political ideology of the party.

The Republican party is the party of emancipation, correct? That's pretty liberal. Yet they became the conservative party. The Democrats have become increasingly conservative, to the point that any politically aware voter from the Republicans of the 70s, 80s and 90s should be voting Democrat.

The US needs a new Leftist movement. Occupy seemed to be that, but I'm not sure it will get anywhere.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

It seems to me that part of the problem is most people; and this is pretty universal, not exclusively US, tend to identify with the party label rather than the political ideology of the party.

The Republican party is the party of emancipation, correct? That's pretty liberal. Yet they became the conservative party. The Democrats have become increasingly conservative, to the point that any politically aware voter from the Republicans of the 70s, 80s and 90s should be voting Democrat.

The US needs a new Leftist movement. Occupy seemed to be that, but I'm not sure it will get anywhere.

The viability of a true Leftist movement in the US has been theorized for ages. So far, it has never truly materialized. Even in our most liberal periods, the furthest left an actual political party has ever gotten in the US would be considered centrist or center right in most of the industrialized world.

There are literally hundreds of theories why this is ranging from historical and sociological to geographic and demographic. But the future prospects of a true leftist party in the US are more unlikely now than ever.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

The Republican party is the party of emancipation, correct?

Only in the sense that a radically liberal New England elite intellectual party in the middle of the 19th century labeled itself "Republican". Lincoln would not be able to get a meeting in RNC circles today. The Republicans who were supportive of civil rights in the 50's and 60's were largely the Northern moderates, who were purged by The Great Communicator's Party starting the 80's and are actually vilified by Republicans today. If you look at the state legislation put forth by Republicans in the last three decades, it's overwhelmingly anti-civil rights. The Party evades responsibility today by claiming that the US is "post-racial", so they don't have to worry about minorities being held back in any way.

This is one of the great American political lies. It's as if the National Party had maintained that it was the part of equality, because Apartheid didn't actually involve the mandated exile or killing of non-whites.

Post racial is such an amusing term. You can't use the term while being post racial at the same time, as the word itself recognizes a racial divide. Someone who really was post racial would just say black or white or whatever, but in a purely descriptive non-racial sense. I do remember a nice graph which showed that the majority of people who put themselves as post racial on the census were in the south. Can't find that graph though...

Did find this which was interesting for me at least (semi on topic):

IMAGE(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/05/racial-tolerance-map-hk-fix.jpg)

I'd be interested in the state-by-state breakdown of that data in the US.

IMAGE(http://mibwatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/et-neighbor.png)

Robear wrote:

I'd be interested in the state-by-state breakdown of that data in the US. :-)

I'd be interested in what the other options were.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Robear wrote:

I'd be interested in the state-by-state breakdown of that data in the US. :-)

I'd be interested in what the other options were.

Please pick the option you'd prefer to live next to from the following list:

1. Other race
2. Homosexuals
3. Atheists
4. Dragon with Auto Fetish

lostlobster wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
Robear wrote:

I'd be interested in the state-by-state breakdown of that data in the US. :-)

I'd be interested in what the other options were.

Please pick the option you'd prefer to live next to from the following list:

1. Other race
2. Homosexuals
3. Atheists
4. Dragon with Auto Fetish

What color is the dragon? I totally judge those guys by their race.

Yonder wrote:
lostlobster wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
Robear wrote:

I'd be interested in the state-by-state breakdown of that data in the US. :-)

I'd be interested in what the other options were.

Please pick the option you'd prefer to live next to from the following list:

1. Other race
2. Homosexuals
3. Atheists
4. Dragon with Auto Fetish

What color is the dragon? I totally judge those guys by their race.

Ever notice how white dragons be using they breath weapon like this:
IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Cone.png)

But black dragons, they be using it like this:
IMAGE(http://www.clker.com/cliparts/2/7/1/0/11949849491786662466cloud_jon_phillips_01.svg.med.png)

Here's the link to the article related to the picture by the way. It does go into it at detail a bit, and has a link to the source.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/

Robear wrote:

If you look at the state legislation put forth by Republicans in the last three decades, it's overwhelmingly anti-civil rights.

And then when you pull back to the national level, you see there's actually no "pro-civil rights" party.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

And then when you pull back to the national level, you see there's actually no "pro-civil rights" party.

Hm.

*Looks through paper. Sees anti-abortion bills, voter suppression, and marriage inequality.*

Must be imagining things.

lostlobster wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
Robear wrote:

I'd be interested in the state-by-state breakdown of that data in the US. :-)

I'd be interested in what the other options were.

Please pick the option you'd prefer to live next to from the following list:

1. Other race
2. Homosexuals
3. Atheists
4. Dragon with Auto Fetish

Homosexuals. Best neighbors I've ever had were a bear couple. Some of the nicest and most thoughtful people I've ever met. Super cool to talk to.

Vector wrote:
lostlobster wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
Robear wrote:

I'd be interested in the state-by-state breakdown of that data in the US. :-)

I'd be interested in what the other options were.

Please pick the option you'd prefer to live next to from the following list:

1. Other race
2. Homosexuals
3. Atheists
4. Dragon with Auto Fetish

Homosexuals. Best neighbors I've ever had were a bear couple. Some of the nicest and most thoughtful people I've ever met. Super cool to talk to.

As are all homosexuals who are, of course, an indistinguishable homogenous mass of identical personality traits

Gay people all be like, and straight people all be like!

Maq wrote:
Vector wrote:
lostlobster wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
Robear wrote:

I'd be interested in the state-by-state breakdown of that data in the US. :-)

I'd be interested in what the other options were.

Please pick the option you'd prefer to live next to from the following list:

1. Other race
2. Homosexuals
3. Atheists
4. Dragon with Auto Fetish

Homosexuals. Best neighbors I've ever had were a bear couple. Some of the nicest and most thoughtful people I've ever met. Super cool to talk to.

As are all homosexuals who are, of course, an indistinguishable homogenous mass of identical personality traits

Sorry, I worded that wrong. I meant to say they were FABULOUS!

Two conservative advocacy groups--Crossroads GPS and American Action Network--conducted eight focus groups and a poll in an attempt to better understand why the GOP does so poorly among women voters. The report, Republicans and Women Voters: Huge Challenges, Real Opportunities, found that female voters viewed GOP as “intolerant,” “lacking in compassion” and “stuck in the past."

As major issue was the that the Republican Party "fail[ed] to speak to women in the different circumstances in which they live," such as breadwinners, and that "this lack of understanding and acknowledgment closes many minds to Republican policy solutions.”

The poll didn't paint a better picture for the GOP. Overall, 49 percent of women viewed the Republican Party unfavorably.

Even on fiscal matters — traditionally the party’s strongest issue set — Republicans hold only slight advantages that do not come close to outweighing their negative attributes. The GOP holds a 3 percent advantage over Democrats when female voters are asked who has “good ideas to grow the economy and create jobs,” and the same advantage on who is “fiscally responsible and can be trusted with our tax dollars.”

When female voters are asked who “wants to make health care more affordable,” Democrats have a 39 percent advantage, and a 40 percent advantage on who “looks out for the interests of women.” Democrats have a 39 percent advantage when it comes to who “is tolerant of other people’s lifestyles.”

Female voters who care about the top four issues — the economy, health care, education and jobs — vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Most striking, Democrats hold a 35-point advantage with female voters who care about jobs and a 26 percent advantage when asked which party is willing to compromise. House Republicans say jobs and the economy are their top priorities.

The only bright spot for Republicans was married women without college degrees. They preferred a Republican candidate over a Democratic candidate 48 percent to 38 percent.

The two advocacy groups suggested a three-pronged approach to reaching out to women voters:

1) Neutralize Democratic attacks that Republicans don't support fairness for women by criticizing Democrats for promoting programs that encourage government dependency. Interestingly, "that message tested better than explaining the the GOP supports a number of policies that could help fairness for women."

2) "Deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, then move to other issues" or duck the sh*t out of the crazy, knuckle-dragging policies conservative Christians demand for their vote and just hope women don't notice.

3) Lastly, the report suggests that Republicans "pursue policy innovation that inspire women voters to give the GOP a 'fresh look.'" Suggestions of such "innovative" policies include improving job-training programs, “strengthening enforcement against gender bias in the workplace” and “expanding home health care services by allowing more health care professionals to be paid by Medicare for home health services.”

It should be noted that the two policies House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has promoted as the best way to breakthrough with women voters--charter schools and flexible work schedules--were actually found to be the least popular policies during the focus groups.

1) Neutralize Democratic attacks that Republicans don't support fairness for women by criticizing Democrats for promoting programs that encourage government dependency. Interestingly, "that message tested better than explaining the the GOP supports a number of policies that could help fairness for women."

I am so sick of the words government dependency. If there is a catch phrase for the rich who don't want to pay taxes and want to rile up people who don't realize how those programs help a lot of people and are probably programs that they themselves benefit from in some way, shape, or form, I feel like that is it.

2) "Deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, then move to other issues" or duck the sh*t out of the crazy, knuckle-dragging policies conservative Christians demand for their vote and just hope women don't notice.

Or.. I dunno, realize that you can't hold a position of less governmental control, except when it comes to the uterus without looking like dumbasses and just back the hell off... push for funding for programs that help women support children they don't want to abort... but say hey, we're not going to control your bodies, we're just putting these programs out there to help people who want to support life, and if that's not your thing at this particular time for a particular reason... more power to you.

3) Lastly, the report suggests that Republicans "pursue policy innovation that inspire women voters to give the GOP a 'fresh look.'" Suggestions of such "innovative" policies include improving job-training programs, “strengthening enforcement against gender bias in the workplace” and “expanding home health care services by allowing more health care professionals to be paid by Medicare for home health services.”

That sounds a lot like spending money on people who aren't working and bringing back affirmative action.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for Republicans to be more competitive and really push both sides to bring up candidates that are better for all of us... but these ideas kind of sound terrible. That and I still don't understand how Republicans have a higher margin on things like the economy and national defense after the Bush administration and the Tea Party's complete social/economic Darwinism push for everyone not in the upper 5% (while those upper 5% folks get more tax breaks than ever! WOO!).

OG_slinger wrote:

Two conservative advocacy groups--Crossroads GPS and American Action Network--conducted eight focus groups and a poll in an attempt to better understand why the GOP does so poorly among women voters. The report, Republicans and Women Voters: Huge Challenges, Real Opportunities, found that female voters viewed GOP as “intolerant,” “lacking in compassion” and “stuck in the past."

As major issue was the that the Republican Party "fail[ed] to speak to women in the different circumstances in which they live," such as breadwinners, and that "this lack of understanding and acknowledgment closes many minds to Republican policy solutions.”

The poll didn't paint a better picture for the GOP. Overall, 49 percent of women viewed the Republican Party unfavorably.

Even on fiscal matters — traditionally the party’s strongest issue set — Republicans hold only slight advantages that do not come close to outweighing their negative attributes. The GOP holds a 3 percent advantage over Democrats when female voters are asked who has “good ideas to grow the economy and create jobs,” and the same advantage on who is “fiscally responsible and can be trusted with our tax dollars.”

When female voters are asked who “wants to make health care more affordable,” Democrats have a 39 percent advantage, and a 40 percent advantage on who “looks out for the interests of women.” Democrats have a 39 percent advantage when it comes to who “is tolerant of other people’s lifestyles.”

Female voters who care about the top four issues — the economy, health care, education and jobs — vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Most striking, Democrats hold a 35-point advantage with female voters who care about jobs and a 26 percent advantage when asked which party is willing to compromise. House Republicans say jobs and the economy are their top priorities.

The only bright spot for Republicans was married women without college degrees. They preferred a Republican candidate over a Democratic candidate 48 percent to 38 percent.

The two advocacy groups suggested a three-pronged approach to reaching out to women voters:

1) Neutralize Democratic attacks that Republicans don't support fairness for women by criticizing Democrats for promoting programs that encourage government dependency. Interestingly, "that message tested better than explaining the the GOP supports a number of policies that could help fairness for women."

2) "Deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, then move to other issues" or duck the sh*t out of the crazy, knuckle-dragging policies conservative Christians demand for their vote and just hope women don't notice.

3) Lastly, the report suggests that Republicans "pursue policy innovation that inspire women voters to give the GOP a 'fresh look.'" Suggestions of such "innovative" policies include improving job-training programs, “strengthening enforcement against gender bias in the workplace” and “expanding home health care services by allowing more health care professionals to be paid by Medicare for home health services.”

It should be noted that the two policies House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has promoted as the best way to breakthrough with women voters--charter schools and flexible work schedules--were actually found to be the least popular policies during the focus groups.

I'm expecting them to go with a fourth option: Make sure there are less college-educated women around.

This is basically "don't change the policy, change the descriptions".

Robear wrote:

This is basically "don't change the policy, change the descriptions".

To be fair if you like your policies and don't want to change them then you don't have a lot of options.

kazooka wrote:

I'm expecting them to go with a fourth option: Make sure there are less college-educated women around.

They're workin' on it.

Oh, and make sure they're married off.

kazooka wrote:

I'm expecting them to go with a fourth option: Make sure there are less college-educated women around.

I had exactly the same thought -- that's the root cause to be fixed!

farley3k wrote:

To be fair if you like your policies and don't want to change them then you don't have a lot of options.

In which case, they will lose more and more at the polls as time goes by.

If the Tea Party is a reaction to diminishing influence on society, what will be the reaction when they actually start losing ground in Congress in spite of all the money and gerrymandering?

Turns out Ron Paul's campaign did pay an Iowa state senator to change sides from Bachmann's camp to his. To be fair, Bachmann was also paying him. But Paul and his team flat-out lied about this, repeatedly, with their denials.

Kent Sorenson, of Milo, Iowa, admitted in federal district court that former Rep. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign secretly paid him $73,000 after he dramatically dropped his backing of Rep. Michele Bachmann in late 2011 and endorsed Paul’s White House bid, saying at the time that Bachmann was no longer a viable candidate.

A furious Bachmann charged then that Sorenson was being paid to flip his support to Paul -- an accusation that Sorenson, Paul and his campaign officials all denied.

But in court papers filed Wednesday, Sorenson acknowledged that he had been paid by both presidential campaigns.

Wow. Looks like Rand has quite an example set for him...

This is how seriously the RNC leadership is taking the autopsy and report on women voters:

TPM[/url]]
After discussing how Republicans need to work on outreach with Latino voters, [Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee] came back to the ten point gap between Republicans and Democrats.

"The gist of the poll was 50 percent of the women are saying they have a negative view of the Republican party and 40 percent of the women are saying they have a negative view of the Democratic party and we're still on pace to win a majority in the United States Senate. Sorry," he said.

That's right. Who needs to worry about the future of the GOP when they have a slight lead in the polls right now for the 2014 midterms? Talk about winning a battle, but losing the war...