• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
RNC to spend $10 million this year on minority outreach

They also, unfortunately, want to reduce the number of Republican presidential primary debates:
It says so much about this party that their strategy to win elections is to deny their candidates a platform to espouse their views.

Fortunately the expectation is still there for them to debate Democrats, and all it takes is one stupid remark to destroy a candidate's credibility forever.

And good luck trying to "crown" Christie as the nominee. The base is pissed about the establishment getting to choose 2012. Anyone could see Obama had 2008 in the bag after the economy collapsed, but there's a belief that 2012 was very winnable by the right candidate.
Of course, the right candidate would be someone more like Huntsman than Santorum or Bachmann, but let them believe what they want.
 

Jooney

Member
It says so much about this party that their strategy to win elections is to deny their candidates a platform to espouse their views.

Fortunately the expectation is still there for them to debate Democrats, and all it takes is one stupid remark to destroy a candidate's credibility forever.

The party shouldn't need 20 debates to espouse their views. The only people that benefitted from this in 2011/12 were the media
and the democrats
 
Normally think Friedman's op-eds are generally trash. But I actually paused and thought more about this one...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/o...-its-lose-lose-vs-win-win-win-win-win.html?hp
My pause didn't last very long.
In an ideal world, you would have 45 percent go to pay down the deficit so that we don’t have to cut entitlements as much — appealing to liberals and greens — and have 45 percent go to reducing corporate and income taxes — to encourage work and investment and appeal to conservatives. The remaining 10 percent could be rebated to low-income households for whom such a tax would be a burden.
While Googling carbon tax news I saw some Keystone articles again. Sad that it seems to be happening.
 

Gotchaye

Member
The party shouldn't need 20 debates to espouse their views. The only people that benefitted from this in 2011/12 were the media
and the democrats

I think the base should still want them. Obviously the main effect of the debates was to give other candidates a platform to challenge Romney and/or force him to the right, and so to the extent that he was inevitable and to the extent that his moving to the right contributed to his loss in the general, they were bad for the party. But the debates are still the best way for candidates without establishment support to get a hearing and the best way to force some degree of ideological purity on the eventual candidate. I would love to have a similar schedule for the Democrats, and I think their base is sufficiently sane that it wouldn't produce as much ridiculous behavior from candidates.
 
An RNC guy wouldn't want to primary an incumbent.

I just meant taking the word of one guy whose main mission is stopping gay marriage isn't indicative of how the party will act. We'll see if there is a serious and well-funded primary challenge when the time comes. My guess is that there won't be.
 

Chichikov

Member
Normally think Friedman's op-eds are generally trash. But I actually paused and thought more about this one...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/o...-its-lose-lose-vs-win-win-win-win-win.html?hp
I paused and thought that fuck Friedman, he barely said shit in the article and he's still unable to identify the problem in Washington, and no, it's not lack of "leadership" or conversation changing ability.
The GOP is treating the mandate and cap and trade (conservative ideas) like it's super communism, their problem is not with the ideas, It's with working with Obama.
 

Jooney

Member
Cap and trade was the market based solution that all but eliminated acid rain. Republican shape shifting on this issue is atrocious.
 
I'm confused. He has said he will vote for gay marriage, vote and work to overturn Ohio's gay marriage ban, and supports gay rights. Does he have to marry a man before you believe him?

No, just lick the tip.



If he does all those things, fantastic, he becomes one of the "good ones."
 
Was discussing the racial implosions of CPAC with Mandark, on GAF Gold. Figured I'd post his thoughts and get folks opinions
Mandark said:
Why doesn't the GOP reach out to black voters?

Short, inflammatory answer: Because it's fucking racist, bro.

Longer, nuanced answer (gonna rehash a bunch of Nixonland-y stuff you're already aware of): There are a lot of white voters who, to varying degrees and in various ways, are culturally averse/suspicious/unsympathetic toward black people and who don't want to see politicians and government beholden to black interests. They've been welcome in the GOP and have had lots of their attitudes (about food stamps/welfare, the Civil War, busing, affirmative action, multiculturalism, etc.) adopted by mainstream US conservatism.

Rhetoric that makes black people feel unwelcome in the GOP tells those white voters "We're on your side, against them." Everyone calls that stuff dog whistles, but it's a bad metaphor. A dog whistle can only be comprehended by the dog, but everyone can hear the racial undertones when Rush Limbaugh talks. It's just kept nice enough that it's deniable. Cause they're not worried about offending black people (whose votes they've forsaken), they're worried about offending white people who don't want to be seen as blatantly, explicitly racist.

So pissing off black voters has been a feature, rather than a bug. Even if changing demographics mean that incentive doesn't work for the GOP at large any more, it probably does work for the individual politicians, who are trying to win primaries or get a better standing within conservative circles. Bush may have spoke to the Urban League when he was secure as the president and his party's leader, but when he was in a primary fight, he made that speech at Bob Jones University while they still had a ban on interracial dating.

So really, just basic identity politics. Can't be too nice to Ethnic Group A when shunning them is what gets you the support of Ethnic Group B.

"But their policies should benefit both groups, or at least they should believe that, so why leave votes on the table rather than broaden their base?" Cause even if Bush or a couple earnest policy advisors in the GOP really believe that their brand of pro-business policies would be good for poor black communities, their base supports those policies because they believe they will hurt poor black communities, or at least force the lazy and undeserving to carry their fair share.

Like I said, I don't think this is really new to you. But I noticed a certain tendency among libertarians to be a bit hyper-literal and -logical in looking at things, and even when you think you've made allowances for the shenanigans of humanity... nope! The answer here is just people being dumb and tribal and cruel to each other.

Re: Strategic voting among blacks/libertarians. I think the dilemma for libertarians is more like that of American leftists back in the day (like actual commies). Libertarians don't really have a cultural identity or social institutions outside of politics, and besides being fewer they're not geographically concentrated in the same way. For that matter, your goals affect how you organize. If you're a group that's been historically marginalized, then you're going to want access and power. From the outside it may seem like getting black people elected is a shallow/unproductive goal, but for a group that's been shut out for so long?

I don't like one party systems either, but I don't know how much of that's my own bias. Surely there are tons of counties that are deep blue or deep red without serious issues of cronyism, and even in DC campaigns for mayor and council spots are pretty hotly contested, just with the action happening more in the primaries than the general, so there's definitely a big representative aspect. It's not a good sign that voters cleave on racial lines, but I think the split in party identification is much more a symptom of broading racial issues than the cause.

edit: Why isn't ending the drug war a high priority? Its only constituencies are drug users and a subset of urban policy wonks. That's not a formula for an organized and powerful lobby. Potentially sympathetic politicians are going to see a lot more downside than upside in taking it on.
 

Diablos

Member
Just came across this on another board...

9RNodTY.jpg


lmao
 
Was discussing the racial implosions of CPAC with Mandark, on GAF Gold. Figured I'd post his thoughts and get folks opinions
Any effort by Republicans to reach out to black people is going to end in tears for their investors. There's no way you can make the economic message of cutting to the bone welfare, food stamps, and public schools appealing to them because the logic behind it - "they're a bunch of freeloading bastards" - is inherently racist. Even if it's not presented in that manner, they're going to know what impact it would have on either themselves, or if they're not on welfare, their friends and families. I'm obviously not speaking for everyone but from what I can tell there's a stronger sense of community and a "we're all in this together" attitude from African-Americans than any other racial group in the US. Hispanics and Asians sort of have it too but there's more segregation between their ethnicity, while white people just hate each other.

Substantially nothing's going to change, Democrats will get 90+% of the black vote in 2014 like always, especially because Obama will be campaigning hard and his support with AAs has been pretty consistent since he took office, even when his approval rating has plummeted with other groups.

It'd be an easier task to win over Hispanics, but if Republicans plan on torpedoing immigration reform no one's going to give a shit if Marco Rubio is a darker color than the rest of the GOP. Of course, they won't in 2016, but Republicans don't seem to know that!
 
States rights is definitely a dog whistle, and quite alive and well within the party. So while there certainly is an overt dislike of blacks coming from right wing media ("freeloaders, takers, etc"), there's also a more subtle underpinning among more mainstream conservatism that reassures the nativist members of the movement that blacks still get hurt more than whites.

Perhaps an even larger problem is that many conservatives hate racial minority identity, and therefore cannot agree with messaging aimed at appealing to any group that dares prefix their race ahead of their nationality. The mainstream GOP message on Hispanics is that if you just take race (immigration reform) out of the equation you Americize them, and their natural hard work/can do spirit plus religious beliefs will make them realize they're natural republicans. They treat women the same: if you eliminate abortion and equal rights you can make women realize they're republicans at heart.

Which goes back to subtle insinuations that are racial. When you suggest Hispanics and Asians should be republicans because they work hard, yet ignore black outreach as a lost cause, aren't you insinuating that blacks do not work hard and therefore will always be democrats? After all isn't that why they love Hermain Cain, Alan Keyes, and Clarence Thomas so much: because they can directly say that without being called racist?
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
So...apparently there's been some uproar with that Steubenville rape verdict or something today. Seems a lot of people are sympathetic to the rapists. Anyone wanna fill me in on wtf?
 
The GOP boxed themselves into a corner on this one. The Southern Strategy helped them achieve White House dominance from 1968 to 2008, a curse only broken by two white southerners, until the dam finally broke and Obama won twice in a landslide, both times. As a result Democrats' floor in the electoral college is much closer to victory than the GOP's - Obama pretty much needed only one of the swing states to win, whereas Romney needed all of them. And of course, he only ended up getting one, the most Republican of them all, one that Obama only won by a smidge in 2008 and bailed on in the final weeks of the campaign.

It's also troubling for the GOP in that what were previously their "safe" states - Arizona, Georgia, Texas, adding up to 65 EVs, as well as swingier states like Florida and North Carolina - are trending Democratic, while none of the states that are trending Republican, like Indiana and Missouri, are a big part of Democratic victory calculus anyway, as much as they like to pretend Pennsylvania (O+5), Minnesota (O+8), Michigan (O+10) will turn red any day now. The day Florida starts voting reliably Democratic (may already be here) is the day the GOP's goose is cooked.

So anyway. If the national party wants to believe Hispanics are just one issue away from voting Republican, they can have fun losing more elections. Poll after poll show Hispanics are liberal on a host of economic and social issues. Much like how pro-choice Republicans aren't going to capture big numbers of women votes. And for how many voters they'd gain by becoming pro-choice or pro-amnesty, I have to imagine there are a bunch of angry dumbass white people who would leave the party in droves over it. Where would they go? Who the fuck cares, they're not going to win.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Chinese doctors have performed more than 330 million abortions since the government implemented a controversial one-child policy 40 years ago, according to official data from the health ministry. Data posted on the health ministry website shows that since 1971 - shortly before China started encouraging people to have fewer children - doctors have performed 336 million abortions.

Holy shit, 330 million abortions. Or as Obama would call it:
a good start.
 

User 406

Banned
WASHINGTON (AP) — Reeling from back-to-back presidential losses and struggling to cope with the country's changing racial and ethnic makeup, the Republican National Committee plans to spend $10 million this year to send hundreds of party workers into Hispanic, black and Asian communities to promote its brand among voters who overwhelmingly supported Democrats in 2012.

No reason to be worried about this, I'm sure those brave RNC workers will all have concealed carry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom