Different people voted to reelect Obama for different reasons. Some of those reasons wouldn't apply in every election or could be applied to a Republican candidate. We shouldn't assume that Obama's voters represent something like a liberal majority among the electorate or are people who would support the Democratic candidate in every election. People sometimes vote largely or entirely on the basis of something as non-partisan as incumbency, personality, or an intuitive impression about a candidate. Millions of people who voted for Obama yesterday could easily vote for the Republican candidate in 2016.
And the Republicans could improve on yesterday's turnout without much difficulty. The Republican enthusiasm that seemed likely to be in place and was showing up in so many polls didn't produce anything close to the level of Republican turnout that many people expected. Republicans have a lot of potential for improving in that context.
So, while this is a time for Republicans to do some reevaluating, I see no reason to think that major changes need to be made in the near future. Focus on winning the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016. Marco Rubio probably is at the top of the list for the 2016 candidate, but that list could change many times in the coming years. We have a lot of good candidates to choose from.
Yes, we should try to win the support of more women, blacks, Hispanics, etc. But the situation isn't as bad as some people are making it out to be. Something like nominating Rubio in 2016 or significantly improving our turnout effort could be sufficient to get another Republican in the White House. The idea that most voters are now liberals is absurd. So is the idea that the Republican party needs some sort of major restructuring, such as abandoning its conservative stance on issues like abortion and marriage. While the changes needed amount to more than just tweaking around the edges, the Republican party remains a party that just got almost 50% in the popular vote for president, still controls the House of Representatives by a wide margin, still has a majority of governorships and state legislatures, etc.
I just heard Frank Luntz interviewed by Sean Hannity. Luntz apparently conducted some focus groups last night, asking people why they voted as they did. He made some of the same observations I've made above. Many people voted for Obama because of his perceived empathy. Luntz explained that people often vote based on feelings more than thought. He doesn't think there's any need for Republicans to change their position on any issue. There are other ways to get more votes, such as changing the way we communicate what we believe.
ReplyDeleteThe same person who distrusts or dislikes Romney because of his wealth or his Bain reputation might find somebody like Marco Rubio appealing and vote for him. Millions of voters could easily vote to reelect Obama one year, then vote for a conservative Republican four years later.
Indeed, four more years of Obama may greatly raise the toxicity level of the Democrat brand. The true onerousness of Obamacare has only begun to be felt. In fact, some businesses were probably waiting to see how the election turned out before lowering the ax.
ReplyDeleteThen there's all the other stuff Obama will try to muscle through during his second term.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, a majority of auto industry workers voted for Obama. I take it this is because they basically didn't care about much else besides the fact that he saved their jobs. And I think a lot of this occurred in the battleground states. But I don't know if they'll be inclined to vote for a Democrat next time around.
ReplyDeleteI see your point, and agree as far as the Republicans go. The GOP will win again in the future. I mean, they comfortably retained the House last night and will probably do so again in 2014. They may even take the Senate in that election as well, to be followed with the Presidency in 2016.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I see: To what avail? I'm no "Ron Paul or bust" kind of guy, and I gladly cast my vote for Romney. However, I think the American people openly supported evil on Tuesday night. I see no way of sugarcoating that other than to say there is always hope. Even if the GOP wins and enacts a few conservative reforms, our political problem is ultimately a spiritual problem that can only be solved by a movement of the Spirit to bring restoration, healing, salvation, and obedience to all of our hearts. The American people must repent or they will continue to be judged. Believe me, I hope they do and believe against all odds they will, if only because it is to my personal benefit that they do.
The Republicans can't stand pat, Jason, unless they want to become the dying party of old white men. Demographics are against them. Hispanics and Asians are the fastest growing ethnic groups and they voted overwhelmingly Democratic. Unless they do something to reach out to minorities, they're doomed over the long term. Hispanics should be in the pocket of Republicans - they are religious, socially conservative - but the far right anti-immigrant wing of the Republicans chases them off. I don't believe in unlimited illegal immigration but just saying that the millions already here should just deport themselves as Romney said, well, that was just plain stupid if you wanted to appeal to Hispanics. The Republicans really need to think through what they need to do to attract minorities.
ReplyDeleteGrifman said:
ReplyDelete"The Republicans can't stand pat, Jason, unless they want to become the dying party of old white men. Demographics are against them. Hispanics and Asians are the fastest growing ethnic groups and they voted overwhelmingly Democratic. Unless they do something to reach out to minorities, they're doomed over the long term. Hispanics should be in the pocket of Republicans - they are religious, socially conservative - but the far right anti-immigrant wing of the Republicans chases them off. I don't believe in unlimited illegal immigration but just saying that the millions already here should just deport themselves as Romney said, well, that was just plain stupid if you wanted to appeal to Hispanics. The Republicans really need to think through what they need to do to attract minorities."
1. It doesn't sound like you read Jason's post. Or perhaps you misread it or failed to understand it. Jason never suggested Republicans "stand pat" or that they don't "reach out to minorities" or that they don't consider minorities. For example, Jason said, "Yes, we should try to win the support of more women, blacks, Hispanics, etc." That's pretty clear.
2. Anyway, I think your point is off-base as well. Republicans do attempt to attract minorities. I'm oversimplifying but Republicans generally speaking attempt to attract voters including minorities based on conservative values like independence, hard work, enterprise, love of country, etc., whereas it seems to me Democrats attempt to attract minorities based on social programs, big gov't, class warfare, war on women, etc.
Just look at how Obama ran his campaign. He went after Romney with stuff like Big Bird, you didn't build that business, vote for revenge, and so forth. He tries to foster resentment.
But apparently a large swathe of voters including minorities like Hispanics and Asians (as you say) are more attracted to the Democrats' vision than the Republicans' vision. So I don't think the problem is that the Republicans fail to attract minorities so much as, if there is a problem, that perhaps minorities are more attracted to the message of social programs, big gov't, the class and gender warfare (which perhaps the Democrats intend to feed into the idea that minorities are not as well off as white Americans in America), and the like than they are to the message of independence, hard work, and so on.
I guess the message of a hand-out is more attractive to these voters than the message of a helping hand-up.
3. If so, the problem isn't that Republicans should change their principles if that's what you're suggesting. Rather the problem is that Republicans may need to better persuade minorities that these principles are in large part what have made America - a nation of immigrants - into the great nation she is, a nation of freedom and liberty and all that good stuff, and that the alternative vision is ultimately a vision destined to enslave them to the hand that feeds them.
4. In any case for Republicans the message is true regardless of ethnicity, whereas for Democrats much of their message depends in large measure on ethnic tensions, among other tensions. So the Republican message (not watered down via moderates or RINOs or whatever we want to call them) has longer staying power, I think, than does the Democratic message, which can change with the ethnic composition or the face of America.
5. Besides, there are many fine up and coming minorities in the Republican ranks. There's Marco Rubio, as Jason mentioned. Also, Bobby Jindal. Kelly Ayotte too. Ted Cruz is a rising star as well. There are older players like Condi Rice and Allen West (despite his loss) who could still have a future in the party. There's Susana Martinez who spoke at the convention.
Rockingwithhawking makes a lot of good points. As he mentioned, I haven’t been arguing that the Republicans should “stand pat”. Rather, I think that increased efforts to reach out to groups like Hispanics should be accompanied by efforts to motivate the base more, have a better turnout apparatus, nominate candidates without weaknesses like Romney’s, etc. And we should be careful in judging why people voted for Obama. In many cases, it wasn’t because they agree with Obama’s liberalism. Rather, they voted for him because of his race, because of incumbency, because of how good his handling of Hurricane Sandy seemed to be, etc. Just as there’s no conservative majority in this nation, there’s also no liberal majority. It’s disappointing that so many non-liberal voters are willing to accept something like Obama’s liberalism as long as its accompanied by something else (e.g., his race, his personality, his handling of a hurricane, his background that was less wealthy than Romney’s). But some of those same voters would also be willing to accept the conservatism of a Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal.
ReplyDelete"...there’s also no liberal majority."
DeleteThat's more profound that many people realize. The Democrats may have a large enough liberal base, but it's fragmented. For some this issue is benefits for immigrants, for others it's benefits for seniors, for others it's the environment, for others it's the right of mothers to kill their preborn babies, for others it's the right to marry someone of the same gender, for others it's the right of unions to rob investors, etc. ad nauseum. Each one of these little groups is willing to concede the other issues in favor of their one big issue. If there were no conservatives, they would eat each other alive. So the liberal strategy is to paint conservatives as the evil, greedy, white, male, Christian oppressors.
It's not that we haven't made a good case in the public square. It's that the media of news, TV talk shows, movies, newspapers, magazines, etc, have been saturated with this false portrayal that plays on people's self-absorption. We can't make our case on the same premises. The old American ideal is based on the understanding that each generation has to fight its own battles and live on its own accomplishments. Even conservatives today have fallen for the line that we want to "make a better world for our children." That's what others around the world mean when they see liberal America, shake their heads and say, "Americans are spoiled and do not understand how things really are."
The Democrats may have a large enough liberal base, but it's fragmented.
DeleteMy concern is that once you vote for a party in your youth, it can be hard to change that habit when you're older.