Talk-Polywell.org

A pretty good election post mortem based on an interview with some Republicans who get it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magaz ... d=all&_r=1&

I thought this was good:

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

=====

Well the Republican war on youth certainly isn't helping the brand.

=====

And then there was this:

The party brand — which is to say, its message and its messengers — has become practically abhorrent to emerging demographic groups like Latinos and African-Americans, not to mention an entire generation of young voters. As one of the party’s most highly respected strategists told me: “It ought to concern people that the most Republican part of the electorate under Ronald Reagan were 18-to-29-year-olds. And today, people I know who are under 40 are embarrassed to say they’re Republicans. They’re embarrassed! They get harassed for it, the same way we used to give liberals a hard time.”

=====

Funny thing - from what I read - the youth on the right lean libertarian. And you know how the core of the party feels about libertarians these days. They put out a big sign:

Republican Party: Members Only: Libertarians Not Welcome.

Well there is more. But you can read it. And I will do what I can to get the word out to all the voters the Republicans don't want. Honored to be of service.

Incredibly good read. Wonder if the "Old Guard" around here will even bother trying to understand what the article was saying.

To answer your OP question, the GOP is going to be struggling for the next 20 years until most of the old guard either retire or die off. The Southern Religious Democrats have taken over too much of the party and now dictate it's direction. Anyone not conservative enough gets primaried out and replaced by someone who is.

Same thing happened here in our last election.

Everytime I loaded a new youtube page, there was the leader of the New Democrat Party (left wing) charismatically stating his opinions and goals.
The NDP obliterated the federal separatist party in the election in the province. The separatists went from 49 seats (out of 75 available in Quebec) to 4 thus losing full party status i.e. funding and staff.

The NDP went from 1 seat to 59 out of 75. I attribute to this election massacre to the use of digital media and in this case specifically using ads on youtube.

palladin9479 wrote:Incredibly good read. Wonder if the "Old Guard" around here will even bother trying to understand what the article was saying.

To answer your OP question, the GOP is going to be struggling for the next 20 years until most of the old guard either retire or die off. The Southern Religious Democrats have taken over too much of the party and now dictate it's direction. Anyone not conservative enough gets primaried out and replaced by someone who is.

Here is one for you:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Reagan

St. Ronald would not be welcome in his own Party. It only took them 24 years from Reagan's retirement to making him anathema. And I mean that in the religious sense.

Will the old guard get it? Of course not. Why should they? "Gott Mit Uns" is their motto. They don't need votes.

On a more practical note: the GOP will hold on longer than their vote totals would indicate they should.


That's because of the 2010 midterm Dem route, with its backlash against Obamacorp, which also coincided with decennial redistricting at the state and local levels.

And it's a simple fact, acknowledged by Dem and GOP strategists alike, that the GOP took advantage of that and gerrymandered the daylights out of all of the state and local maps that they could get their hands on as well as a few that they weren't supposed to touch.

I can understand where you're coming from with this tack... the GOP actually lost the popular vote in 2012 and lost it decisively... but even so the House would ordinarily be expected to stay red for a decade or two barring massive upheavals in the expected demographic trends...

...

... of course with climate change ramping up so rapidly it seems that massive upheavals are the order of the day and it might be that that House advantage could be blown away by the next three or four or ten superstorms...

... of course with climate change ramping up so rapidly it seems that massive upheavals are the order of the day and it might be that that House advantage could be blown away by the next three or four or ten superstorms...

I know exactly what you mean:

IPCC's Pachauri acknowledges ‘No warming for 17 years’

No. Next question.

the GOP actually lost the popular vote in 2012 and lost it decisively

Post the numbers if you are so sure it was so decisive.

it wasn't decisive at all in the popular vote, electoral college yes.

but the GOP has a plan: redraw the districts!
it works well up here, the separatist party has won all its majority governments (4 occasions) with less then 50% popular vote. Wins with 41.4%, 42.9%, 44.8 and 49.3%.

Their strengths are the rural areas, much like the GOP, where a seat in the legislature can be won with like 3000-4000 total votes while in the cities the ridings require something like 4-10 times that number.

Like the Nationalist Socialists election victory. They "won" with 44%. Which means 56% voted against them.

I am still wondering what zapkitty was talking about. Decisive? Not.

Republicans won with 47.9%, 47.8% and 47.9%.

Just saying

Yes and they have lost with similar numbers as well.

The U.S. is fairly evenly divided these days. You see it in each election cycle. The Dems have taken it based on two themes that I can see when they do. 1. They do not offer voters a split choice of candidates. They are able to unify the field. 2. They have been a little smarter about buying votes with federal $$$, and letting those folks know who butters the bread with other people's money.

Vote for me and I'll give you free ice cream, and I am the only ice cream guy in town.
vs.
Vote for me and I'll tell you to go get a job and earn money to buy your ice cream, and I own the company that provides ice cream franchises.

By the way.
This trendy stat making the rounds about how Dems have won 4 of the last 6 elections is a total cherry pick. It is as valid as me saying that Republicans have won 7 of the last 12. Or even better lets go back to post Cult of Personality Roosevelt, and say 9 of the last 17.

And let us define a decisive victory. Maybe not so decisive, but let us say it is winning with better than a 5% margin. Personally I would put it at 10% margin or something higher. So that would mean that Republicans have won decisively in 6 of 9 wins for the last 17, verses 4 of 8 for the Democrats.

I picked Roosevelt as the cutoff for analysis because he was the last of the more than 2 terms rule.
In case anyone is curious, since Franklin Pierce, the Republicans have won 23 times, verses 18 for the Dems. Of those wins, using the 5% decisive rule, 16 of 23 for the Republicans, and 11 of 18 for the Dems were "5%" Decisive.

Useful Idiots. Think for yourselves.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... rical.html

Edit:spelling

<more crickets...>