Top Republican: "My GOP: Too old, too white to win"

About the author:

Bill Greener is a founding partner of the political consultancy Greener and Hook. He served in both the Ford and Reagan administrations and as convention manager for the 1996 Republican National Convention. He also teaches at the George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management.

The article:

July 20, 2009 | Republicans can engage in complicated studies to determine the standing of our brand. We (after all, I most certainly am a Republican) can search for policy positions that better connect us to the concerns of voters. We can do any number of things to try to change our fortunes. Until we come to grips with some fundamental math, however, the numbers simply do not add up to the GOP prevailing in a national election any time soon.

[snip]

What happened? By 1988, the non-Hispanic white vote had shrunk to 85 percent; by 2004, it was about 77 percent; and in 2008, it had shrunk to 75 percent. Last November 13 percent of the electorate was black. Barack Obama won almost all this vote (97 percent). Between 8 and 9 percent of the electorate was Hispanic, a demographic Obama won by a 2-to-1 margin (compared to the 40 percent Bush had won in 2004). That means before the first non-Hispanic white vote was counted, the score was 19-3 for Obama. When you think about the numbers, it's not that surprising that this past Thursday the first black president addressed the centennial convention of the NAACP. A signal achievement, certainly, an unprecedented event, but not a mathematical shock.

But wait -- there's more statistical gloom for Republicans. Just about 18 percent of the vote was cast by voters between the ages of 18 and 30. As a percentage of the overall vote, this did not constitute any sort of meaningful increase -- despite what the pundits were saying. However, since total turnout was up, it did mean more young voters went to the polls. Worse, for Republicans, these voters went to Obama by a margin of 2-to-1. Chances are that now they've got the voting habit, a lot of them will keep turning up on Election Day, and keep voting.

[snip]

The marketing department of the Republican Party is consumed with the idea of "brand." How about we actually look at ourselves as an ordinary, non-political business, selling a commercial product? Who would ever start down a path that essentially said that we will be strong in all the declining markets while we let our only significant competition be strong among the emerging and growing markets? Unless North Dakota suddenly gets 54 electoral votes, would someone please show me another way for Republicans to realistically conclude we can compete at the national level?

[snip]

Unless and until Republicans can demonstrate an ability to attract more support from minority voters, from younger voters, from voters living in urban areas, it seems to this die-hard Republican that we are kidding ourselves if we think the 2008 election was just a speed bump on our road to a lasting majority. Looking at nothing more than the math, it appears to me our challenge is far more daunting.

Full article: www.salon.com...

The Republican party is obviously at a crossroads ...

Ideology and mathematics seem to be at odds, and elections can't be won by middle age white males alone.

"The base" as it is called, is mired in fundamentalist and theocratic principles, yet it seems the only way forward which would enable the party to attract a more diverse support base lies in the more 'centrist" ideology for the party, namely the moderates. These two forces keep pulling at each other and I for one have difficulty seeing how they can reconcile into one unified voice.

Of course, all seems dark in the aftermath of lost elections. I remember not so long ago that many were declaring the death of the democratic party. And so it might have been but for the monumental unpopularity of G W Bush.

Surely though a party cannot rely solely on the hope that the other guys screw up. I mean what kind of American would want their president and congress to fail, at great cost to his fellow Americans, just to see their party win the next elections. Well ... maybe a couple of folk are like that.

The republican party looking for a unified identity, in the worse possible marketing move, they actually branded that "branding." I mean, they might as well have said "new and improved with 10% less Jesus."

I kid of course but the author's point is a valid one. And though many people don't like it, we are a multi-ethnic nation. To win elections, the ideals and platform of any party must appeal to all.

Anyhoot, I thought this was an interesting perspective from the Republican point of view.

A Republican looks at the numbers and sees disaster ahead, unless his party figures out how to be less -- caucasian

(same source)

You know, I've been thinking about this and I'm not really sure how a party does that.

Now a lot of my Republican friends tell me that the party is just fine if it goes back ti its conservative roots. Others say that going back is the biggest mistake of all and that times have changed and the party needs to change with them. And there's that core vs centrist question. It's almost like the Republican party is a coalition of two smaller parties united by their opposition to the Democrats rather that vision.

It is a dilemma ...

I'm not really sure how a party can become more "something." They are what they are, if they change to be something different to attract minorities then they will be something else. Furthermore, the idea that they 'simply need to do a better job explaining their values and platform to the American people' is just plain ridiculous. We just went through an election, Fox news and he radio pundits are on 24/7 pitching 'the product,' the American people know what it is.

So how does all this get reconciled, and how does the party move forward?

One answer ...

Palin Hints At Independent Conservative Movement

In an interview with the Washington Times, Palin makes her most direct comments yet about Conservativism versus the Republican Party. In my humble opinion, it’s clear the GOP, unfortunately, is lost beyond the point of return. When you’re one year out of key campaigns to take back Congress in 2010 and Meghan McCain is The Oracle of the party, you know it’s over. If Tina Brown thought Ms. McCain’s willingness to be a Useful Idiot for liberals would undermine the conservative movement (and consequently Sarah Palin), she should take a serious and long look at what their attacks on Palin provoked: a stronger, more independent, more determined conservative leader and base.

Enter now Sarah Palin with very encouraging comments that lead one to believe that she is indeed planning to do what she must: build an independent conservative movement and take this nation back from the liberals which now control both parties.Thanks liberals, for provoking Sarah into the national scene while vetting that family at the same time.

My understanding is that a lot of folk are actually pushing for this.

I imagine no one more than the democrats themselves.

But given the existing schism within the party it does make some sense, like I said above, as it stands, the party is more of a coalition than a unified voice.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

So how does all this get reconciled, and how does the party move forward?

The GOP doesn't want to move forward. They have become the party of thinking that viable platforms are unnecessary and that negative finger pointing and swift boat tactics are enough to win elections.
Emotional issues are the buttons pushed to try and win voters on single issues.

The AM radio GOP cheerleaders do have a hardcore group of followers among the older demographic of pissed off, old white guys, with very few real converts as the population grows younger and not to interested in listening to them. And at one time the GOP had a real shot at attracting Latino voters ala antiabortion but they blew that with their refusal to raise the minimum wage and obvious acceptance of just token rightwing Latinos.
Bush and his ability to speak Spanish, probably did win some support in the Latino Texan community.



Let's face it; politics is now entertainment and to succeed you need white teeth, charisma, and a lot of money. The smart money has bailed on the GOP and they only have themselves to blame.

In our local elections the Republicans don't even put their party affiliation on their campaign posters, where as the Democrats make being a Demb. a focal point of their advertising. What's that tell you?

If the economy really tanks, and if the GOP can successfully blame it on Obama they might have a slim chance of winning back some moderates. But with out a strategy of how to get out of the economic tank, then all the name calling will be pointless and the GOP will be rejected once again.


Palin could reenergize the faithful but to make her something other than latenite comedic fodder will take some kind of mystical intervention.




[edit on 20-7-2009 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa

The GOP doesn't want to move forward. They have become the party of thinking that viable platforms are unnecessary and that negative finger pointing and swift boat tactics are enough to win elections.

Well, that is a tactic not a platform right?

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by whaaa

The GOP doesn't want to move forward. They have become the party of thinking that viable platforms are unnecessary and that negative finger pointing and swift boat tactics are enough to win elections.

Well, that is a tactic not a platform right?

The republican party looking for a unified identity, in the worse possible marketing move, they actually branded that "branding." I mean, they might as well have said "new and improved with 10% less Jesus."

That was funny!!

Yeah, but tactics is all they got left. They were warned a long time ago; but did they listen............

www.examiner.com...

[edit on 20-7-2009 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa

Yeah, but tactics is all they got left. They were warned a long time ago; but did they listen............

Mmm, surely not though ...

Beating up on the other guy is useful to a degree but a party needs to have a concise plan and a unified voice.

The question for the Republican party is whether or not they can achieve that in a way that attracts a greater cross section of voters without sacrificing their conservative principles. Of course we're not talking about simple repackaging here, there are fundamental issues at stake and they need to be reconciled by two seemingly divergent elements within the party.

How disappointing ...

Conservative ATS members are only too happy to indulge in Democrat bashing, criticism, and birth certificate quests.

Seems talking about actual issues and the direction of their party is not high on their priority list. As within so without I guess.

Pity ...

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Seems talking about actual issues and the direction of their party is not high on their priority list. As within so without I guess.

I think a major problem is that people have been conditioned to react to their party leaders and the expressions produced in their mainstream medias. As much as I love the internet, I have recognized that it has been over run with the same old same old...that is, there is a faster medium for the old pundits and mimicries to place themselves and what is familiar is familiar and as such is promulgating.

So I think that discussing one's party...in the new age should take a back seat to the issues and identifications along a party line should fall to the way side.

Labels are sooo 1980's...

But I am thinking it will be a great deal longer before people extend their metalities beyond reactionary thoughts...

This makes me want to puke.

Here you go, Republitards. Here is how to win the next election.

1) Decry statism and embrace libertarianism. Think Barry Goldwater conservatism, not Jerry Falwell conservatism.

2) Make your number one campaign promise the prosecution of all white collar criminals, public or private sector. Anti-corruption (in essence, the opposite of Halliburtonism).

3) Nominate the smartest damned person in the party. No more cowboys with room temperature IQ's, and no more old boys network buddies.

4) It is time to bust some trusts. # the corporations, this one is for the people.

Do those four things and portray the Democrats as old boy, big city machine, crooked politicians (which they largely are).

Jesus, this is not rocket science.

Originally posted by Grumble

Here you go, Republitards.

Is that really necessary?

It's getting next to impossible to have courteous and intelligent political discourse around here.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Top Republican: "My GOP: Too old, too white to win"

America goes through phases. They want someone young and perky so they vote in skirt-chaser Clinton. They get tired of his antics and vote in a (supposed) white male born again christian. They get upset with his 'god said to go to war' and vote in a 1/2 black extremely liberal mess. In the next election they'll swing as far away from what they see Obama as so i don't think the GOP has to run out and find some young person of color to match Obama. By 2012 America will have woken up to what Obama is and the GOP won't want a clone of him. They'll want to look very different then him.

The GOP is NOT too old or too white.
Sometimes with age comes wisdom.
Obviously Obama is young and completely inept.
And as far as skin color goes ... skin color doesn't make someone smart.
It's just skin color.

Originally posted by Grumble
This makes me want to puke.
Here you go, Republitards.

Your 'republitards' comment makes ME want to puke.
We don't talk like that around here.
Go play at that crap-hole democraticunderground.

reply to post by FlyersFan


But what of the ideological split within the Republican party between the "base" and the moderates? The one that Sarah Palin and others are alluding to when they talk about a party split.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


The party split thing has nothing to do with 'too old, too white'. It has to do with people waking up to the fact that you don't have to be stuck with a two party system. It has to do with the fact that many republicans aren't part of the fundamentalist religious right which they perceive has kidnapped the republican party.

I fully believe (or at least hope) that MANY republicans and democrats will remember the third and forth parties in 2012. The libertarians. The constitution party. Etc. But again - these have nothing to do with being old or white. It's just about policy.

The only ones who seem to be obsessed about age and skin color are the democrats ... and they are the ones who run around saying age and skin color shouldn't matter.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Too old? .. Yup. So are Dems though.

To White? .. Don't think so, unless the minority community is to racist to vote for a white person?

To Liberal? .. Ohhhhh there you go.. yes, that will be the REAL reason..

If the Republicans abandoned their Socialist ideologies coupled with hypocritical religious extremism, those that fled to the third parties might return and the Republicans would have the majority of the vote. But seeing as they only progressively become more Liberal with each passing election, it's highly unlikely.

reply to post by FlyersFan

The only ones who seem to be obsessed about age and skin color are the democrats ... and they are the ones who run around saying age and skin color shouldn't matter.

Ok, but I didn't write the article, a Republican did.

And I did say in the OP that declarations of doom are prevalent after any lost election.

Is there nothing to the numbers he presented?

[edit on 23 Jul 2009 by schrodingers dog]

Thanks FF for your words from the loyal opposition

And perhaps you are correct about the next election being a reaction against Obama but with a younger, more colorful, and www. savvy demographic; the A&R guys over at the GOP have got their work cut out for them to find someone that will be appealing, hip and electable.

The people that voted for Obama are not going to switch their allegiance to the Republican/conservatives even if they get disenchanted with Obama.
The Dembs have taken a page from the GOP playbook and are more than willing to pull a "George Bush" to keep the money from big corp rolling in.
And we all know that money talks and BS walks.

I could be very wrong in my assessment. 2010 will be the test.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

But what of the ideological split within the Republican party between the "base" and the moderates? The one that Sarah Palin and others are alluding to when they talk about a party split.

Republicans are supposed to stand for low taxes, small government and free markets and a very tight government budget.

They currently stand for high taxes (lower for the Oligarchy), huge government, Fascist economics, and an ever inflating budget..

So we basically have this split:

TRUE Republicans, which stand for the original philosophies of Constitutional Law.. these are fleeing to the Libertarian (as I am) or Constitutional Parties.. at ever accelerating speed at that.. if you combine the Constitutional and Libertarian parties votes to the Republican, the Republicans would have won the election(s).

FAKE Republicans.. These are the ever aging Republicans that are Socially Conservative, like anti-abortion anti-gay anti-fun etc, born again Christian types.. They are also Socialist and Fascist.. they don't stand for a single original concept of the Republican Party.. they are religious fanatics who want Uncle Sam to take care of them as they get older and poorer. They highjacked our party, and they are an abomination .. I believe the majority of Republicans desire the original concepts of Liberty and Freedom from Government and thus are leaving.. When I look at a Democrat and a Republican the only difference I see is one is Socially Liberal, one of Socially Conservative. Government and Economically speaking they would be in the same party... and seeing as social issues are never debated, wtf is the difference?


If your a True Conservative, you will leave the Republican Party behind, and you will join the Libertarian or Constitutional Parties.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

If the Republicans abandoned their Socialist ideologies coupled with hypocritical religious extremism, those that fled to the third parties might return and the Republicans would have the majority of the vote. But seeing as they only progressively become more Liberal with each passing election, it's highly unlikely.

There's a lot to what you say here.

The party is split between those two factions when they would be much better served to stick to core conservative values which would meet in the middle. Take away the religious fundamentalism and the liberal appeasers ... heck I might even vote for that.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


I got a lot of my political views from my Father, then through school he thought I was a little to liberal. Then he got old, got sick, and now we argue worse then ever because...... I am too conservative! He is a perfect example of the problem.. A huge portion of the Republican Party are ex-Liberals who naturally gain more socially conservative ideas as they age (darn younguns ya know) but still think the Government should be buying their meds and sending them a weekly check to live. It's like political confusion.. Then there is a huge portion that is old-school conservative, but as they age feel they are owed something, and look to the government for assistance.. Socialized Medicine, Social Security, Welfare, they love it, depend on it, and still claim to be Conservative.

I hope to see in my life time a strong three party system. Democrats, Republicans (who certainly don't stand for a Republic) and Libertarians. I hope the Constitutional Party disbands and unions with the Libertarians.

The GOP is a decrepit beastie that needs to be put down.

Ps. ..... The movie Powder scared me as a child. (SD's avy if no one knows what I mean)

[edit on 7/23/2009 by Rockpuck]