Republicans Haven’t Learned The Lessons Of 2012

The GOP seems to be making the same mistakes that led to defeat in 2012.

republicans-elephant-flag-shadow

National Journal’s  Josh Kraushaar notes that the Republican Party doesn’t seem to have learned much from the 2012 election and, to the extent the problems it faces that led to what can only be seen as a defeat least year have been pointed out to them, they don’t seem to be at all interested in implementing reforms. As we all know, back in March, the Republican National Committee released its post-election autposy of the party as well as recommendations for what the party needed to do by way of reforming itself. Among those recommendations were the idea that the party needed to moderate its position on immigration reform in order to get beyond the idea that Republicans are anti-immigrant or anti-Latino, doing a better job of candidate recruitment with emphasis on greater diversity, and to be more open to rallying around Governor’s whose job forces them to be pragmatic rather than Members Of Congress who tend to be more polarizing because they only have to worry about appealing to small constituencies rather than actually governing (see e.g., Michele Bachmann et al)

As Kraushaar, notes Republicans don’t seem to be following any of this advice at all, and instead are repeating the same mistakes all over again. Take, for example, the candidate recruitment suggestions:

The disconnect is on full display in this month’s Massachusetts special election, which features Gomez, a former Navy SEAL pitching himself as a new kind of Republican who is moderate on gun control, immigration, and the environment. He’s just the type of nominee the Republican leadership is looking for—especially in a deeply Democratic state—and public polls show he has a chance against Democratic Rep. Edward Markey, a 37-year Capitol Hill veteran. Yet Gomez hasn’t won the enthusiasm of the donor class or received much assistance from any outside Republican groups, including the establishment-centered American Crossroads and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “The moderate donors want to be certain their investment is going to pay off. The conservative donors want to make sure the candidate won’t do something they disagree with,” Todd said. “Add all that up, what it comes down to: People are scared to engage.”

To be fair, another reason that donors are likely holding their cash back when it comes to Gomez is the fact that it’s looking increasingly unlikely that he is going to have a realistic shot of pulling off the kind of upset that Scott Brown did over Martha Coakley in January 2010. Current polls out of the Bay State have Congressman Ed Markey leading Gomez by an average of 9.3 points, a hard margin to overcome with less than two weeks like in the race. All those big money donors aren’t going to throw money into a race that they don’t think is winnable, even if it the only race on the calendar in June. At the same time, though, one does sense that the base of the GOP is less enthusiastic about Gomez this time around than they were about Brown when he ran three years ago. Back then, it was all about getting a Republican in to Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat. Now, after two years in which Brown became the moderate Northeastern Republican he’d always been, there doesn’t seem to be the same kind of enthusiasm. Gomez is a Northeaster Republican in the Scott Brown mold, not exactly the Ted Cruz-like firebrand that seems to be in vogue among the GOP base these days. Of course, Gomez at least has a potential shot at winning the Special Election, Ted Cruz wouldn’t have a chance running in a General Election in Massachusetts. That fact doesn’t seem to register with many people on the right.

Massachusetts isn’t the only candidate recruitment problem the GOP seems to be having right now. When Tom Harkin announced that he was retiring from the Senate, his Iowa Senate seat was seen as a potential pickup for the GOP. Now,with several top tier candidates having bowed out of the race, it’s beginning to look as though that race is slipping through the GOP’s fingers.Similarly, in New Jersey, the only viable candidate who got into the race for Frank Lautenberg’s seat is a hard-right conservative who seems quite obviously out of tune with the mood of General Election voters in the Garden State. Given the quick turnaround time for petitions and the presence of Cory Booker on the ticket, it’s logical that many New Jersey Republicans would be cautious about entering the race. However, it doesn’t even appear that the GOP even tried to get a viable candidate into that race.

New Jersey is also the site of another Republican disconnect when it comes to the question of what kind of candidates are viable at the national level:

Christie’s broad appeal could make him a potentially potent force in the 2016 presidential election—the straight-talking, blue-state conservative governor who has built politically savvy relationships with Democrats, including President Obama (on hurricane recovery), Newark Mayor Cory Booker (on education reform), and several state legislative leaders (to pass his landmark pension reforms). It’s those very relationships, particularly his working partnership with Obama, that have soured his relationship with the base, however. And it’s his desire to protect his standing in New Jersey that has burned bridges with party chiefs in Washington. But there’s no denying Christie has made himself a widely popular Republican, the type that’s in short supply these days within the party.

“There’s a cognitive disconnect between what we need and what we have right here in front of us in New Jersey. They’re missing the connection,” one Christie ally said. “When they say ‘pragmatic,’ it sounds great on paper, but not in reality. Conservatives can’t stand the fact he had a productive relationship with President Obama in the wake of Sandy.”

Christie is also taking political heat from his fellow Republicans for scheduling an early Special Election rather than trying to schedule one for 2014 and allowing a Republican appointee to serve until then. As I’ve noted before, though, that strategy was fraught with legal peril and likely would not have succeeded. Additionally, such a blatantly partisan move on Christie’s part would have been entirely out of character for him and likely would’ve damaged his own political brand. More importantly, though, the way the GOP base has reacted to Christie over the past six months or so has been a fairly clear demonstration that many of those people don’t understand that there’s a difference that the governing that Governors like Christie must do, and the freedom that Senators and Members of the House of Representatives have to take far more radical policy positions than Christie and most other Republican Governors do. Even in a state where he GOP controls the Governor’s Office and the Legislature, being Governor means having to be pragmatic and, quite often, having to compromise. Those are dirty words in the Republican  Party right now, and that’s the main reason that people like Christie are being rejected by the base. The problem for the base is that those are precisely the kind of politicians that can win national elections.

Perhaps the one area that best demonstrates how little the GOP has learned from 2012, though, is immigration:

[T]he most significant gap between the RNC’s recommendations and the GOP reality remains on the issue of immigration. The dissonance is less about individual lawmakers’ positions on the comprehensive immigration reform being debated in the Senate than the tonal insensitivity the party often conveys to Hispanic voters.

Case in point: Last week, Rep. Steve King of Iowa, an immigration hard-liner, cosponsored an amendment to defund the program Obama initiated that allowed children of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States. King’s rhetoric on immigration was considered so politically toxic that Senate Republican strategists urged him to stay out of Iowa’s Senate race, fearing he could cost them a battleground seat. But all but six House Republicans voted for his legislation, including most members in swing districts.

“It reinforces a tone of insensitivity that is just beyond baffling,” said one senior Republican official.

Indeed, the entire reaction of the GOP base and “Tea Party” activists to the immigration debate has been baffling on many level. Marco Rubio, who became the darling of the Tea Party when he took on Governor Charlie Crist for the Senate in 2012, forced him from the GOP race, and then beat him in November, has turned into a pariah in some circles because of his support for the Senate immigration bill. Indeed, the reaction to that bill on the right has forced Rubio, who clearly has the idea of running in 2016 in the back of his mind, to walk a very fine line between supporting a bill he seems to clearly know is necessary and mostly good and alienating the activists in the party that could cause him trouble in the primaries. Meanwhile in the House, the House GOP Caucus seems poised to block almost any immigration reform bill regardless of what actually comes out of the Senate. Throughout all of this, Republicans are once again ignoring the advice of those like Rubio and Jeb Bush who have been warning Republicans for years about the dangers of alienating Latino voters. If you were going to write a story of political suicide, you would find no better example than how the GOP is handling the immigration debate.

So, why is this happening? Why are Republicans ignoring such seemingly good advice? Well, Greg Sargent has a fairly good hypothesis:

Why should Republicans change at all? After all, thanks to geographic patterns of partisan population distribution and gerrymandering, the GOP grip on the House remains a lock, and Republicans will likely make gains in the Senate. Which raises a question that I wish the political science eggheads would answer: Are the structural aspects of our politics such that no matter how aggressively Republicans pursue policies that risk alienating core voter groups they need to improve their appeal among, it won’t materially impact the party’s fortunes? Is there a point at which any of this matters?

I would think that there has to be. The GOP’s advantage in the House isn’t going to last forever, and may well be subject to being swept aside by yet another wave election at some point in the near future. Recruitment failures create the possibility of the GOP getting close to that elusive Senate majority even more unlikely. Finally, if the GOP loses a third Presidential election in 2016, with the possibility of losing a fourth in 2020 on the horizon, one would think that the party will finally wake up and realize that they need to do something about the direction of their party. The question is whether they’ll be able to do it in time to escape the inevitable slide into minority status that their current actions seem to be heading them towards.

FILED UNDER: Borders and Immigration, Campaign 2014, Campaign 2016, Congress, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. David M says:

    I’ve thought for a while that the GOP really won’t change until Texas is blue. Even then there isn’t a guarantee of change, but you’d think they would simply out of self-preservation.

  2. Spartacus says:

    Doug wrote:

    The problem for the base is that those are precisely the kind of politicians that can win national elections.

    That is not a problem for the base. It’s a problem for everyone else in the GOP. The base is content to lose an election if winning requires them to compromise in any way. Many leaders of the base have stated this publicly many, many times.

  3. Mercer says:

    ” reaction of the GOP base and “Tea Party” activists to the immigration debate has been baffling ”

    I think people who think legalizing millions of poor Latinos will help the GOP is letting love of multiculturalism cloud their thinking. What makes them think the new voters will vote for the GOP? Low capital gains taxes? Cutting food stamps? Privatizing Medicare with Ryan’s plan?

    Do you think the Dems won in Ohio, Michigan and PA because of immigration? If you do you were not paying attention. The Dems won because they ran on accusing the GOP as the party of the rich who do not care about lower income Americans. If the GOP reacts by increasing the number of low skilled immigrants and making it legal for millions of current illegals to work in the current labor market they would confirm they care only for the wishes of employers of low skilled labor and are indifferent to the concerns of ordinary voters.

    News Bulletin: The last push for amnesty was lead by someone named McCain in the Senate. Did Latino voters reward him?

  4. The best explanation I’ve seen about the GOP’s behavior is the “iron law of institutions”: “The Iron Law of Institutions holds that the people who hold power in institutions are guided principally by preserving power within the institution, rather than the success of the institution itself.”

    So, extremism and irrationality can be bad for America, even bad for the GOP’s popularity, but gaining power within the party.

    Fewer than 10% of Delawarites and Indianans turned out to vote for Christine O’Donnell and Richard Mourdock, respectively. So sure, statements from folks like Steve King and Rush Limbaugh are bad news for the party overall. But it’s in the interests of every GOP politician to look out for his chances in the next primary, not the party’s overall popularity.

    Plus, as David Frum pointed out, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.” That is, the GOP primary electorate is wholly in thrall of the right-wing infotainment complex. So Republican politics is a matter of tone and attitude.

    There’s little policy component to GOP rhetoric or policy at this point. Even something that Republicans support for decades– such as the Heritage Foundation’s health insurance reform plan– can be denounced, by every single Republican, as unconstitutional tyranny. You talk up Gomez a bit in this post, but he can’t offer any policies whatsoever. “I’m a green Republican,” he says, then opposes any policy that might be characterized as “green”.

    It’s not that they haven’t learned the lessons of 2012. It’s that they’ve, rationally, learned the lessons of Mike Castle and Dick Lugar.

  5. David M says:

    @Mercer:

    I’m not sure you’re evaluating all the facts. Writing off everyone who isn’t white seems to be a worse strategy than even what you described. Especially considering ongoing demographic shifts, where the percentage of white voters is decreasing.

    Finally, didn’t McCain abandon his own immigration reform plan after it was rejected by the far-right GOP? Why should he be rewarded?

  6. Mercer says:

    “Writing off everyone who isn’t white ”

    I don’t think the GOP should write off non-whites. I think the current GOP effectively writes off lower income voters of all races.To think adding millions of poor voters to the electorate and depress the labor market while keeping an economic platform that caters to the wealthy is a baffling strategy to win elections but that is the line the donor class is pushing. Actual GOP politicians would be stupid to think it will help them win elections.

  7. Pinky says:

    I’m still fairly new to this site, but are all articles here about the same thing?

  8. David M says:

    @Mercer:

    Wanting the GOP to oppose immigration reform because they have an economic policy that favors the rich doesn’t make a lot of sense. Immigration reform is the right thing to do, no matter what their other policies are, and if their economic policy is wrong, then they should fix it.

  9. michael reynolds says:

    I told you days after the election I didn’t see them learning or growing or changing. They can’t.

    Current party members don’t want change. They aren’t about winning elections or governing, they are emotion-driven. Their party affiliation is about rage and loss. That emotional fix is what they want. Every lost election actually enables them in their downward spiral, because each loss confirms them in their belief that they are a desperate, besieged remnant of Americanism in a sea of other.

    They won’t change. In fact, they’ll likely grow even more extreme. It’s death spiral time. They crave their own destruction.

  10. @Mercer:

    To think adding millions of poor voters to the electorate and depress the labor market while keeping an economic platform that caters to the wealthy is a baffling strategy to win elections but that is the line the donor class is pushing.

    What makes you think the undocumented immigrants are all poor? It might actually shock you how many own and operate their own small businesses.

    @michael reynolds:

    They aren’t about winning elections or governing, they are emotion-driven. Their party affiliation is about rage and loss.

    How did you know what my right-wing Facebook friends are posting on my wall????

    This strikes me as roughly true. But it was not always true. I also think that it won’t always be true. There are the nascent mewlings of a reform movement –We political junkies know the names– but I think that will only increase in volume the dumbest the dead-enders get.

  11. michael reynolds says:

    @James Pearce (Formerly Known as Herb):

    It’s interesting to me because the GOP isn’t wrong to be feeling loss. They’ve come to see themselves as the white folks party, the rural party, the old people’s party. Those are not winning demographics. They feel displaced, and they are being displaced.

    Top it off with the fact that pretty much all of their cherished theories and notions are being objectively disproven, and one can understand the panic. To rational people it looks as if they need to rethink. But they aren’t rational, they’re too busy panicking to be rational. What, after all, is the natural evolution from the “Rage and Hate” position? How does one get from this sort of tribal panic to a new paradigm?

    I don’t have much faith in the few reformers. On the one hand, Chris Christie. On the other hand, Fox and Limbaugh. I guess we’ll see.

  12. James in Silverdale, WA says:

    In the immortal words of Marge Simpson (and she’s been quote by so many), “well, duuuh.”

    Let us now list the GOP’s governing achievements in the 21st century:

    .

    My, that was quick. OK, it’s Friday, and we’re a bit punchy…

    The pathway to the GOP’s salvation has yet to appear on any known map.

  13. Dave D says:

    @Mercer: You know immigration reform also comes with reforms to how we handle how people who are here to get graduate degrees may have an easier path to stay and work. Also how to get more doctors in rural areas and a ton of other areas where the policy has become broken.
    @michael reynolds: I think that since the Republican party has become the white is right party, when they use the term immigrant they think migrant farm worker. They think of the tired, poor and huddled masses and want them to be sent back to their countries of origin, repressive regime or not. Freedom has to them seemingly become a finite object that they seem terrified brown people will use all up themselves. Apparently yearning for freedom only counts if you do so away from America, in a country that has oil, through a war that can enrich your buddies and avenge your daddy.

  14. Mercer says:

    ” you think the undocumented immigrants are all poor?”

    I never said they were all poor. I say they are on average poorer then native Asians and whites.

    “also comes with reforms to how we handle how people who are here to get graduate degrees”

    The GOP caucus will vote for a bill increasing high skilled immigrants. It is the Dems who insist that any increase in high skilled immigrants must be tied to an amnesty of millions of illegals. I see no reason why the GOP should agree to the Dems demands that any immigration bill must include amnesty.

  15. Brett says:

    @Greg Sargent

    Are the structural aspects of our politics such that no matter how aggressively Republicans pursue policies that risk alienating core voter groups they need to improve their appeal among, it won’t materially impact the party’s fortunes? Is there a point at which any of this matters?

    I’m not sure there is, and it relates to the fact that even in very “red” states, the legislatures tend to be much more conservative than the overall population in those states*. The simple truth is that the vast majority of the voting population simply doesn’t care about politics until either something “goes really wrong” (at which point they blame whoever is in power), or unless it’s a close race and the excitement draws some of them in. Until that happens, they just tend to let things carry on, even if it means those congressmen occasionally engage in bouts of extremism to appease the smaller fractions of voters who tend to harass them about particular issues and show up to vote in primaries and off-presidential elections.

    * Erica Grieder talks about this in her book on Texas.

    I tend to think nothing will change on that front unless Democrats build up corresponding potential special interest groups who will do the same type of thing in the same type of numbers, or until the hard-core activist groups either dissipate or shrink down to the level where they can be ignored (like how white supremacy activists became more ignorable after civil rights reform in the 1960s). It’s just too easy to otherwise cave into them, especially if they really can hurt you in your primary.

    Until then, we’re stuck gradually changing hearts and minds (which is working with gay marriage), and making the most out of Democratic wave years (such as with health care reform after 2008).

  16. David M says:

    @Mercer:

    I don’t think the GOP should write off non-whites.

    I see no reason why the GOP should agree to the Dems demands that any immigration bill must include amnesty.

    Those two statements would appear to be mutually exclusive.

  17. Latino_in_Boston says:

    It’s not that the GOP can’t learn, it’s that they don’t want to learn. They have the truth, don’t they?

    I think the only way they could really refocus, would be if they lost the House and the Senate in the most dramatic way possible in 2014 and 2016. A Hillary presidency, plus democratic majorities in Congress should have a way of focusing minds. Until then, I do think they will get worse.

  18. Mercer says:

    David M said:

    “Those two statements would appear to be mutually exclusive.”

    Only if you believe that non-whites would vote GOP except for immigration. Since Latinos have lower incomes then whites and Dems will give them more government benefits I don’t see why anyone thinks that is the case.

  19. David M says:

    @Mercer:

    Your position is getting a little incoherent. How exactly should the GOP go about both completely opposing immigration reform and still trying to appeal to minority voters?

    And saying the GOP should oppose immigration reform because the new citizens might vote the wrong way isn’t a concern I will ever take seriously. I’m hard pressed to find an issue I care less about than the future potential electoral chances of Republican politicians.

  20. steve s says:

    Finally, if the GOP loses a third Presidential election in 2016, with the possibility of losing a fourth in 2020 on the horizon, one would think that the party will finally wake up and realize that they need to do something about the direction of their party. The question is whether they’ll be able to do it in time to escape the inevitable slide into minority status that their current actions seem to be heading them towards.

    The GOP has no control over the direction of their party.

    The Fox/Limbaugh Media Complex makes its fortune keeping rural religious anti-gummint older white folks in a state of feeling persecuted by elite educated condescending success-punishing constitution-hating gay white jesus-haters who want to murder babies and black/hispanic welfare thieves who are also dumb criminals. This is the Tea Party, aka the GOP base. Here in the deep south I see them up close and personal every day. They are my friends and relatives and co-workers who literally talk about Benghazi every day and how they honestly don’t understand how Obama hasn’t yet been impeached/overthrown by the military and put on trial for treason. That is not, even slightly, an exaggeration.

    As long as Limbaugh/Ailes care more about maximizing profit off this demographic, they will continue to pander to this demographic by creating false scandals, acting racist, lying about economics, science, the UN, etc.

    Limbaugh/Ailes sell derp. The derpy buy the derp. “Hooray!” Limbaugh/Ailes say, “Let’s go make them some more derp and get more richer!” The GOP could lose every last election for every last seat in the entire country, and Limbaugh/Ailes would say “Who gives a shit? How’s our ad revenue doing?” And there’s nothing John Boner and Mitch McTurtle can do except try to repeat enough of the current derp to not get primaried. The GOP is hostage to the Derp Industry, whose interests don’t align with the GOP’s, and there’s nothing they can do about it.

    But I’m basically just expanding on what Josh Barrow said re Eric Erickson.

  21. steve s says:

    What Reflectionephemeral said.

  22. steve s says:

    I don’t think the GOP should write off non-whites. I think the current GOP effectively writes off lower income voters of all races.To think adding millions of poor voters to the electorate and depress the labor market while keeping an economic platform that caters to the wealthy is a baffling strategy to win elections but that is the line the donor class is pushing. Actual GOP politicians would be stupid to think it will help them win elections.

    There is a strongly positive correlation between how much a candidate spends and his odds of winning. The donor class is essential to a politician.

  23. steve s says:

    Current party members don’t want change. They aren’t about winning elections or governing, they are emotion-driven. Their party affiliation is about rage and loss. That emotional fix is what they want. Every lost election actually enables them in their downward spiral, because each loss confirms them in their belief that they are a desperate, besieged remnant of Americanism in a sea of other.

    As usual, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Reynolds.

  24. Mercer says:

    David M:

    I think most Latinos vote Dem because of economics not immigration. The GOP should change their economic agenda if they want more Latino votes. Passing amnesty while sticking to supply side/Paul Ryan economics will not help the GOP win Latino votes.

  25. Mercer at 14:53:

    I think people who think legalizing millions of poor Latinos will help the GOP is letting love of multiculturalism cloud their thinking.

    Mercer at 15:21:

    To think adding millions of poor voters to the electorate and depress the labor market

    Mercer at 17:41:

    I never said they were all poor.

    Nope, you didn’t. Not all. Just “millions” of them.

  26. @michael reynolds:

    I don’t have much faith in the few reformers.

    I don’t either, especially since they’re all from the journalistic realm.

    I do like Chris Christie though and would definitely consider voting for him if he ran for national office.

  27. Jim Henley says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Current party members don’t want change. They aren’t about winning elections or governing, they are emotion-driven. Their party affiliation is about rage and loss. That emotional fix is what they want.

    I think this is sort of true and sort of not. The GOP has a governing mission it takes very seriously, which is protecting the interests of the ownership class, and beyond “protecting” it, helping it expand its dominion. Because of the multiplicity of veto points in our system, it only needs a certain amount of electoral success to do that.

    I do agree that, in pursuit of its mission, the GOP has set emotional fires that have gotten out of its control. Among other things, there’s every indication that the donor class actually believes a lot of its own bullshit. Viz. Investor’s Business Daily. But I think the true test of whether the rage and loss has become the party’s point comes when it has to really choose BETWEEN maximizing the sway of the 1% and keeping the rage-fest going. I don’t think we’re there yet.

  28. Jim Henley says:

    If I’m The GOP the institution, and I have intentionality, I am clearly a figurative construct for the sake of argument. Very well, then. I am. Here is what I am thinking:

    1. I don’t need to moderate in 2014. Off-year election; older; whiter; geographical sorting by ideology; gerrymanders. I shouldn’t moderate in 2014. I’ve got bosses to protect and vaginas to wrangle.
    2. I don’t need to moderate in 2016. It’s a 12th-year election so the country will be facing Democratic President Fatigue. The voters will be looking for a reason to switch parties. The business cycle may well be hitting a downturn too. I just need someone who can sound reasonable: a Bob McDonnell, say. Then we’re in to lock in as many policies as possible before the demographic tide takes us under.

    So I decide to stand firm now, and moderate after 2016. At least that’s what I decide now. If things go my way in 2014 and 2016 I then decide I don’t need to moderate: it’s working for me! And if I don’t do well in those two cycles, I decide:

    1. Well, 2018 is an off-year election!
    2. In 2020 we’ll have had 12 years of Democratic presidents! It’s all but unheard-of for the same party to win four presidential contests in a row…

  29. bk says:

    @Pinky: Well, there are indeed a few patterns, to wit:

    1. Shorter Doug: “Obama administration releases economic news, which could be better.”
    2. Shorter James: “Whatever happened to the Republican Party, whose candidates I continue to vote for in lockstep?”

  30. michael reynolds says:

    A bit off-topic: Jeb Bush is going to run. Count on it.

    The third BUSH can only run against the second CLINTON. It immunizes him against the dynasty charge.

  31. David M says:

    @Mercer:

    I think most Latinos vote Dem because of economics not immigration. The GOP should change their economic agenda if they want more Latino votes. Passing amnesty while sticking to supply side/Paul Ryan economics will not help the GOP win Latino votes.

    Seems unlikely that the GOP would not get any more votes if they supported immigration reform. I don’t think anyone is claiming that one thing would fix everything, but it most certainly be an improvement over continuing to actively alienate the Latino community over this issue.

  32. jukeboxgrad says:

    steve:

    The GOP is hostage to the Derp Industry, whose interests don’t align with the GOP’s, and there’s nothing they can do about it.

    This is the whole story in a nutshell. See also:

    “The conservative media movement exists primarily as a moneymaking venture.” Link.

    “Republicans have been fleeced and exploited and lied to by a conservative entertainment complex.” Link.

  33. Collectivism Wins, GOP loses says:

    @David M:
    GOP & Dems are puppets of Jewish collectivist power. Collectivism always wins over Libertarianism. this is not left vs right, GOP vs Dems, Socialism vs liberty. This is war against White people.

    Why do hostile globalist elite defend Israel as a Jewish ethnostate with Jewish only immigration, but ravage White majority Europe/North America into a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Gulag with dystopian non-White colonization?

    The world is 93% non-White, only 7% White. But 3rd world colonizers, Muslims, Sikhs, Hispanics, are aggressively advancing their agenda to annihilate gullible Whites, just as China annihilates Tibet.

    How long will gullible Whites cuckold for murderous anti-White elite, who confiscate our guns, infiltrate/subvert our banks/FBI/CIA, indoctrinate White kids in academia/mass media, plunder White jobs/wages, & butcher White soldiers in bankrupting wars?

    “Native” Americans invaded from East Asia. Yellow & Brown races committed 10-times more genocide, slavery, imperialism than Whites. Since Old-Testament, Whites have been victims of Jewish/Crypto-Jewish, Turkic, Muslim, N.African imperialism, slavery, genocide.

    Gullible Whites should reject subversive ideologies- libertarianism, feminism, liberalism- & reject hostile slanders of racism. Peace to all humanity, but White people must organize to advance their interests, their fertility, their homelands. Spread this message. Reading list: goo.gl/iB777 , goo.gl/htyeq , amazon.com/dp/0759672229 , amazon.com/dp/1410792617

  34. superdestroyer says:

    @David M:

    Immigration is a huge mistake for the Republicans. It creates millions of more automatic Democratic voters, it harms the core groups that actually do vote for Republicans, and it lowers the standard of living for American citizens.

    The cheap labor Republicans only support amnesty and open borders because big money donors such as Sheldon Adelson who want low paid immigrants to work in his casinos. If the Republicans are going to get a higher percentage of the middle class voters, the Republicans need to throw the cheap labor, open border supporters under the bus.

  35. al-Ameda says:

    @Collectivism Wins, GOP loses:

    The world is 93% non-White, only 7% White. But 3rd world colonizers, Muslims, Sikhs, Hispanics, are aggressively advancing their agenda to annihilate gullible Whites, just as China annihilates Tibet.

    LOL!

  36. superdestroyer says:

    @michael reynolds:

    who cares? Jeb Bush is an idiot who has no chance of winning in the general election. Jeb, like his brother, is too lazy to read the briefing books and too stupid to understand them even if he did.

    Jeb Bush’s remarks this week about immigration and his book on immigration clearly demonstrate that Jeb should never be president and should never be allowed to affect policy or governance again.

  37. Caj says:

    Republicans will never learn! That’s who they are. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks after all. The policies they have will never change no matter how much the public express their dislike of what they do. They like who they are, anti-gay, anti-women’s rights, anti-immigration.
    Religion and guns are what they more interested in. Say a prayer that gun control is never changed! They are a sad, desperate party that has little to do with reality. As for we the people, they say: who are they?

  38. Jim Henley says:

    @Collectivism Wins, GOP loses: Please preface comments like this with “I’m not racist, but…” It’s traditional.

  39. Jim Henley says:

    @superdestroyer:

    The cheap labor Republicans only support amnesty and open borders because big money donors such as Sheldon Adelson who want low paid immigrants to work in his casinos. If the Republicans are going to get a higher percentage of the middle class voters, the Republicans need to throw the cheap labor, open border supporters under the bus.

    I actually think that in combination with Republican economic policies designed to channel all productivity gains to the 1% – and the 0.1% and 0.01% within that cohort – that this is not a completely crazy take. Immigration really does “grow the pie,” but by design the slices available to everyone but the rich stay the same size.

    The trick for the white middle class though, is to start kicking up and not down for a change. Reject Republican economic policies themselves. It’s not hard!

    Put it this way: if you really think the big-money backers of the GOP support looser immigration to screw the white middle and working classes, what other economic policies do they support to screw the white middle and working classes?

  40. fred says:

    GOP reps are totally out of touch with Americans. For one thing only women should have control over their bodies, not a club of rich white males. GOP females should be ashamed of themselves by not challenging these males. By the way if GOP did not stand in the way of Pres Obama’s agenda our country would be a lot better off today and confidence in the GOP congress would not be at the all-time low.

  41. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @James in Silverdale, WA:

    Let us now list the GOP’s governing achievements in the 21st century:

    .

    James, you forgot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the exploding deficit and an imploding economy. These are all note worthy accomplishments.

  42. G.A.Phillips says:

    I’m still fairly new to this site, but are all articles here about the same thing?

    They are mostly about how the GOP is stupid and racist and about how perverts need special rights and privileges

    So the answer is yes..

  43. Jim Henley says:

    @G.A.Phillips:

    They are mostly about how the GOP is stupid and racist and about how perverts need special rights and privileges

    So the answer is yes..

    To be sure, the GOP is sexist too, but since the OTB author roster is exclusively male that doesn’t come up as much. As for “perverts” – people who are way too interested in other people’s sexual practices, to the point of wanting to give them directions on just what they should be doing sexually, like your typical GOP legislator or base voter – I have not seen OTB calling for these people to have special rights and privileges. Unless you mean the filibuster.

  44. stonetools says:

    @Pinky:

    I’m still fairly new to this site, but are all articles here about the same thing?

    Doug does seem to make this kind of post a lot-every two weeks or so. Maybe it’s time to move on to the logical conclusion-the Republicans WILL NEVER learn the lessons of the 2012 election-in part because they learned a different lesson.
    Many of the Republicans now in Congress are there as a result of the 2010 landslide, where their message was, in effect, “Its time to turn the clock back”-to 1952, to 1932, or maybe 1912(before the federal income tax). Gerrymandering then gave them safe seats, with the result that they largely survived the 2012 defeat.
    Now I would argue that they misread what happened in 2010. For me, the 2010 landslide was all about the public showing their revulsion to the surge in unemployment to 10.4 per cent, and penalizing the Democrats for not preventing that. However, Republicans think that the message they won on is the right one, and they point to their retention of the House in 2012 as proof that they are right. THAT’S the lesson they learned from 2012.
    Nothing will convince these Republicans they are wrong, other than massive defeat at the polls. Pleading with them to “see the light” isn’t going to work. They are blinded by the success of 2010, and they believed that what worked in 2010 will continue to work.

  45. Caj says:

    I’d like to know the names of the ten per cent of people who support Congress! I’ll have some guys in white coats come by to pick them up. They desperately need medical attention!!

  46. wr says:

    @Jim Henley: “Please preface comments like this with “I’m not racist, but…” It’s traditional.”

    Or: “I was a Democrat all my life, but now the party has moved too far left…”

    Still, it’s nice that SuperD has a little friend here.

  47. george says:

    @James Pearce (Formerly Known as Herb):

    Nope, you didn’t. Not all. Just “millions” of them.

    To be fair, millions of people of just about any demographic (including immigrants) are poor. That’s not surprising in a population of 300 million, where income is starting to follow a bipolar distribution.

    In fact, if they weren’t poor, there’s a pretty good chance more of the GOP would welcome them. As it is, the GOP is pretty much split on immigration; there are many groups in it which are and always have been for increasing immigration (keeps labor costs down etc).

  48. jeff says:

    Immigration reform is merely a tool for billionaires to get cheaper laborand for the democratic party to get more minority voters. In all ways, its terrible for the working and middle class. Its a suicide mission for the republican party. If it is passed, the base will abandon the party in droves.

    Since you are a lawyer, you probably dont do too well with numbers. Heres a few anyway. First, hispanics were 9% of the electorate in 2012. Republicans would have won if we got a few more percent of the white vote. They stayed home because romney looked too much like the guy that fired them. Among hispanics, romney would have needed to win 73%to win the election. Hispanics are basically worthless electorally.

    Whos not worthless are the white working class, with whom romney could have taken pennsylvania and ohio. Romney, of course, was a terrible candidate for them. To actually win elections, republicans need to have a middle class centered tax policy. And to oppose the idea of tens of millions of legal and illegal immigrants coming here and lowering already stagnating wages. But the donors want cheap labor, and have decided to wage war on their own voters, who are finally waking up to it.

    Btw, if they dont pass amnesty, republicans will clean up in 2014. An unpopular and corrupt president with an unpopular healthcare bill is a recipe for another wave.

  49. rudderpedals says:

    @jeff: Good point. Rick Santorum’s going to run with this.

  50. @george:

    To be fair, millions of people of just about any demographic (including immigrants) are poor.

    Fair point.

    In my defense, I wasn’t so much targeting the idea that poor immigrants exist as this idea that “poor” and “illegal immigrant” are terms that can be used interchangeably. It’s a bit more complicated than that.

  51. steve s says:

    Since you are a lawyer, you probably dont do too well with numbers. Heres a few anyway.

    Since you’re a republican, you don’t do too well with book larnin’. Learn how apostrophes work and get back with us.

  52. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @jeff:

    First, hispanics were 9% of the electorate in 2012. Republicans would have won if we got a few more percent of the white vote. They stayed home because romney looked too much like the guy that fired them.

    Give me a break. Romney improved on McCain’s vote count by almost a million votes, the vast majority of which were white and male and a significant portion of which were elderly.

    We took just two demographics – white middle-aged males and seniors, both of which are shrinking demographics. We essentially gave away the womens’ vote, the Asian vote, the Hispanic vote and the youth vote, among others.

    We’re estimated to be on track to become a majority minority country by 2030, and possibly sooner. It doesn’t, or it shouldn’t, take a rocket scientist to do some of that math you’re speaking about and see what it portends for a party that is busily establishing its branding on pandering to fear of other …

    At this rate we’re on course to become the last guy making buggy whips – his customers loved him, but he only had 3 of them.

  53. Jim Henley says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Well, people do still make buggy whips. And not even as fetish toys. Or not only…

  54. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jim Henley: LOL, I bet they wish they had Toyota’s numbers though … 😀

  55. Rascal HarvardLaw92 says:

    @HarvardLaw92:
    you are a venomous blood sucking parasite. And a liar. Whites were demoralized. So they did not come to the polls. White vote shrank, whereas non-Whites vote rapidly increased.

    Romney was more wars, more immigration, more debt. Obama was less wars, more immigration, more debt. So voters decided to go with Obama.

    The solution is to stop 3rd world invasion & repatriate Hispanics, Chinese, Muslims to begin with.

  56. Jim Henley says:

    @Rascal HarvardLaw92: “repatriate Hispanics, Chinese, Muslims”

    You know there’s a term for this, and it’s ethnic cleansing, right?

    If you actually want “less wars,” you should take into account that a program of forcible mass expulsions is a war.

  57. Jim Henley says:

    @HarvardLaw92: I’d love to see a time-series of unit sales for things like buggy whips. Back then you had a smaller population with a higher buggy-ownership rate. Now you have a much larger population in which horse-driving comprises several specialty markets – old-order Amish; cart-racing; hobbyists. (Plus…off-label uses.)

    A few years ago I found, web-surfing, that you can buy really nice, new, horse-drawn carriages and broughams and such – at like $10K+ apiece. I’m sure we sell many fewer now, and they’re not material to the economy. But it genuinely interests me how few things really ever go away.

  58. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jim Henley:

    Ignore him. We seem to have been invaded by the white supremacists of late. Don’t feed them and they’ll get bored & go away. They always do.

  59. Jim Henley says:

    @HarvardLaw92: That’s not always good advice, but it may well work in this case.

  60. jeff says:

    @HarvardLaw92: that isnt accurate. You getting your news from nbc? Fact: mitt romney won young whites by 7, and white women by about 10. He lost women and young because of minorities. In other words, the highest black turnout ever combined with the results of decades of immigration. Its not ordained anywhere that minorities must become the majority. Policies have led us in that direction, and policies can be changed. Another fact is that if white turnout was at 2004 levels, romney would have won.

  61. jukeboxgrad says:

    if white turnout was at 2004 levels, romney would have won

    Not exactly. Mitt would have won only if both black and white turnout had been at 2004 levels. Link, link.

    In other news, if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.

  62. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @jeff:

    Um, no. Not to ruin a good rant, but Black turnout in 2012 matched 2008 – 13% of the electorate. In fact, 339,954 FEWER blacks cast ballots in 2012 than did in 2008.

    White turnout dropped by 2%, resulting in 4,471,756 fewer white voters in 2012 than in 2008.

    Romney lost to Obama by 4,967,508 votes. Even if every white voter who stayed at home in 2012 had voted for Romney, and every other demographic stayed the same at their reduced turnout levels relative to 2008, (which would never have been the case), Romney still would have lost the election by 495,752 votes.

    More importantly, Romney lost by 126 electoral votes. Only four states posted a margin of victory between the candidates of less than 4%. The drop in white turnout was 2%, but I’m doubling that in order to drive the point home.

    Those four states were North Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Between them, they hold 75 electoral votes. Romney already carried NC, so …

    If we assume that white turnout had remained at 2008 levels while holding every other demographic at reduced 2012 levels, and assume that every single white voter who stayed home would have voted for Romney (which is ludicrous, but …) and therefore give Romney all three of those states, he would have gained an additional 60 electoral votes.

    And still would have lost by 4 electoral votes, instead of 126. The absolute best case, most assumptively generous scenario I can construct, giving you double the amount of turnout restoration that you’d otherwise gain, assuming that every one of those additional voters would have voted for Romney and assuming that every other demographic stayed depressed, still results in a Romney loss.

    Now, I’d love to see the source you have which demonstrates that the 18-29 demographic is skewed away from populational norms to the tune of an 18% white relative deficiency.

    Because the numbers tell a different story. The 18 to 24 and 25 to 29 demographics make up 19% of the population, and are normally distributed with respect to race relative to the national population as a whole. Roughly 17 million voters.

    Obama took 60%, or 10,200,000 votes. We’ll be generous and say that Romney took the rest (which is inaccurate, but we’re being generous to you), or 6,800,000 votes.

    Whites made up 12,240,000 of the demographic (at 72% turnout). If Romney took 6,800,000 votes total votes, there is no way mathematically possible that he could have taken a 7% spread over Obama in the white vote.

    But, by all means, direct us to your numbers or demonstrate for yourself how it can be done.

  63. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @jeff:

    Policies have led us in that direction, and policies can be changed.

    Really? What policies?

    Hispanics have a higher birth rate than whites do. What sort of policy initiative do you propose to address that? Sterilizing them, or just preventing them from voting altogether?

    No wait, you tried the second one already. Sort of backfired on you, you think?

  64. Mercer says:

    “339,954 FEWER blacks cast ballots in 2012 than did in 2008.”

    Says who? The Census Bureau disagrees:

    ” raw black vote total grew more than even the Hispanic vote from 2008 to 2012: an incremental 1.68 million for blacks versus 1.44 million for Hispanics,”

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/census-bureau-refutes-comprehensive-immigration-reform-mantra-obama-won-because-of-old-blac

    Note that the percentage of Hispanics voting was lower in 2012 then 2008. In 2012 there were clear differences between the candidates on immigration unlike 2008. The potential Latino voters didn’t care. So much for Hispanics voting mainly on immigration.

  65. Matt Bernius says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    Not exactly. Mitt would have won only if both black and white turnout had been at 2004 levels.

    You beat me to it.