Women, gays, blacks, Hispanics, non-Christians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You can't get a majority from white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males alone. And it's a shrinking portion of the electorate.
Printable View
Women, gays, blacks, Hispanics, non-Christians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You can't get a majority from white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males alone. And it's a shrinking portion of the electorate.
A: Why is this on the agenda? Why waste political capital on this? What's the effect other than pissing off moderate female voters?
B: One can support abortion without making it the centerpiece of most Republican campaigns. The pre-Reagan Republicans managed to do this just fine.
D: These issues explicitly target Muslims. The supporters of the measures know that, and the Muslims know that. Why give up on the Muslim vote just to pander to some lunatics (and these things are part of GOP platforms in at least several states)?
E: Yeah, the entire "war on religion/Christmas/Christians" that makes the headlines every year must be a figment of my imagination. As are the constant attempts to get the 10 commandments into courtrooms.
F: This is the kind of mentality that will lead the GOP to a path of destruction. You can cherry pick all the data you want. The Republican Party is incredibly hostile to immigration reform. The few Republicans who try to deal with the issue either get shouted down or ignored.
G: Yeah, it's not like Republicans regularly try to push the teaching of creationism/ID, or try to defund various sciences, or talk about conspiracies by the scientific community. It's telling that the Democratic get out the vote, fundraising, and political targeting methods are run almost entirely by trained statisticians, while the GOP is either unable or unwilling to do the same with its own election strategies.
H: The "stop giving foreign aid" line is mainly a Republican one. As is the obsession with how awful the UN is. On the flip side, any time a president talks to leaders of countries that are hostile to us, there are always Republican politicians waiting to attack him.
I: http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...66/Revenue.png
J: DeMint has actively campaigned against GOP incumbents who weren't "conservative enough". Even ignoring DeMint, the GOP has refused to take a stand against Tea Party extremists. You can't all pretend to be Tea Partyers and then rail against the base when it forces moderate Republicans from office.
:haha: @ I
Excellent post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think the Republican higher ups understand about the things Loki has spoken about, but does the base? If they're anything like the Tory party after '97 (admittedly this defeat was not anywhere as crushing as that one), they'll only (grudgingly) accept these kinds of changes to the party line only after they get sick of loosing. Which means we can look forward to a string of Democratic presidents for a while.
The republican primary is heavily influenced by the batshit insane amongst that party's supporters. Its the only reason people like Bachmann and Cain got as much attention as they did. And in order for the less insane to stand a chance, they have to act just as insane, which sets them up for record breaking pants on fire remarks and flipflopping.
Hey, I made the similar complaints in my thread about The Republican Party last year....and was promptly dismissed by Loki, et al. :sour:Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I'm mostly an "issues poster", but the new post-Tea Party GOP became the place where the religious zealots, xenophobes, and crazies were hanging out.
At the same time they claimed to be the party of Liberty and Opportunity, and small or non-invasive government, groups like CPAC and Values Voters were redefining 'conservative' in religious (Christian) terms and first litmus test for their 'base'. HR 3....and more proposed legislation on women's bodies/BC/abortion than anything else. Their priorities in action, for everyone to see.
They think we're stupid. Or have Romnesia.
Maybe if the GOP changed some of its policies at the top, more moderates would become registered Republicans, and dilute the influence of the crazies. It also doesn't help that the higher ups have spent the last 3 years pandering to the crazy part of the base, which has given it disproportionate influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
What he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Well it is what you get if you do that pandering. In Turkey we see a prime example of that and what it did to the Turkish Republican Party. It went from the powerhouse of the nation to the party that people who dislike Erdogan would vote for if they weren't so tainted by the craziness of the last 10 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's not the same thing. You should make the same about the Democrats. About "your" party. It's always easy to diss the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I absolutely agree that the GOP has brought this upon themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Loki, my question was more related to how pundits, strategists and GOP in general view polls and predictions, in hindsight. As I said, there seemed to be a disbelief/mistrust either in methods or numbers, because they got things so wrong. :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
There are different reasons bandied about....from GOP using outdated demographics or strategies, trying to persuade instead of motivate, or not using new technology or social media. While the DNC used math quants and social science to data-mine and micro-target (even better than consumer marketers!), built on community organizing, and activating 'ground troops'.
It's interesting that Romney was touted as a math and numbers guy, whose success in business was his keen ability to 'drill down' into data, target weakest links, and turn things around (for profit). Turns out that doesn't work so well in politics and voting. But the GOP still seems stumped by DNC's success and organization, and their secret sauce.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle
I'm not a Democrat. But it seems to me (D) have more centrists or moderates than (R) these days. Especially since Tea Party and Christian Conservatives dominated '10 primaries, and put up a slate of crazies that got elected, mostly because they had a big (R) behind their name.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Women aren't a minority... gays - I guess you never heard of log cabin republicans? Hispanics - like I said Republicans are against racial discrimination as opposed to the other party. Non-Christians? Please.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Just a few points I'll get to the rest later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
A. Because not everything is a political calculation. Principal matters. No one is realistically hurt if the Catholic church doesn't provide birth control in their health insurance policies. Birth control is everywhere.
B. Uh what campaign were you watching? Romney barely talked about abortion. It was all about how the economy was bad, the debt was too high and the middle east was imploding. Also energy.
D. It's one part of a city. Beyond that single issue no one has been in favor of stopping mosques from being built.
The party in power almost always has more moderates. In the early 2000's there were a lot more moderate republicans, in 2006 a lot of them lost because the general wave against R.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
You seem blissfully ignorant of your fellow Republicans, in principle and practicality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...ilver?page=0,0
Pretty good piece about the applicability of Silver's method to other poli sci problems.
You don't run a major political party by constantly sticking to principles. You certainly don't shoot yourself in the foot for an incredibly minor principle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Believe it or not, Romney wasn't the only Republican running for office. I should also note that Romney almost lost the primaries because he wasn't speaking enough about social issues. And the main reason he did win the primary (other than lots and lots of money, coupled with the incompetence of the other candidates) is because the other candidates kept on splitting the anti-Romney vote.
As for opposition to mosques:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-6851256.html
http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...bia/?mobile=nc
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-20080237.html
Well, the GOP is shellshocked, still trying to figure out 'where they went wrong'. They had access to the same polls (and predictions) as DNC, but either refused to believe them, relied too much on gut instinct that proved delusional....or they'd created such an insular bubble and echo chamber that nothing could penetrate.
Conservative media (Fox News, Beck and Limbaugh etc), strategists like Karl Rove, and pundits like Dike Morris seem blindsided. Romney was so convinced of a win, by everyone around him, his concession speech was written at the last minute. :bulb: Then there's the massive failure of the Orca Project that was launched so badly, wasn't even Beta tested, a huge waste of money and volunteer manpower. Even if it had worked as planned, it was still reactive (exit polls) and too late in the game. Maybe that's why Ann Romney robo-called me after I'd already voted, while the Obama campaign had been registering new voters and making sure they had transportation to the polls.
That's been the most surprising thing so far, besides the cluelessness of the GOP -- the poor management of Romney's campaign. For a business whiz who supposedly knew how to get the "best" experts and advisors, it appears he got a lot of establishment Yes Men, or folks from within the delusional echo chamber. :think:
As usual, you take an obvious argument and manage to fail at making. Good job.
So, you can't answer why the GOP had such massive failure using polls, or making predictions. Good to know. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Wishful thinking, and not believing science over guts. Have you read loki's posts recently by the way? I'm pretty sure he already answered your question.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Unwillingness to adopt new technology (one of your own specialties!) != across-the-board group think.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Depressing but hardly mainstream conservative though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Where is the denunciation of these tactics by mainstream Republicans?
E - War on Christmas is a cultural debate - not one that has a lot of political legislation on. As for 10 commandments primarily its been about not removing them. Which is a bit different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
F - The Republican party doesn't want to legalize those violating the sanctity of our border. And it sure as hell doesn't want to provide amnesty for folks who will end up voting Democrat either. The focus should be about what happens when more illegals come over. Pushes the cost of unskilled labor down (which is actually a good thing but hey your the guy who wants the party to bends to popular concepts), increases the strain on social services and makes it easier for cartels/terrorists to cross the border.
G - OK - so patent protection, IP protection are non-science issues? As for ID - what of it? Its taught as a theory that a good chunk of the populace agrees with! Its taught right next to other theories like evolution. If a teacher taught ID as "fact" then there would be an issue. In reality though this another retarded symbolic debate. Kids don't even pay attention to class anyway. As far as electoral strategies I don't think that's true.
H - The UN is awful. Most people also believe it. http://www.gallup.com/poll/116347/united-nations.aspx Why the hell wouldn't Republicans go after it? Foreign aid is another issue that most Americans think we give too much of (and have an absurd idea of how much we actually give) but nonetheless why should the GOP change its stance on this? Its basic populism - which hardly ever impacts legislation.
I - History did NOT start in 1970. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...ury_chart.html I'm talking about global macro trends over the last 300 years. The demand for more government spending has fueled more and more taxation over the long run. In a 100 years (barring some crazy events like nuke wars or unheard of innovations that drastically change the ways of things) government spending will be higher then it is now in terms of GDP. Do you think differently?
J - Take a stand against tea party extremists? There are crazies in every party (look at the loony left screaming no blood for oil and wearing shirts with terrorists on them). But for the most part the tea party has been very restrained. They clean up after themselves. They don't dissolve into riots. They don't clash with police. Compare it to leftist groups protesting WTO or riots in LA. I think your view may be skewed by media efforts like this one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAUsEZgsgko
Why the hell would the GOP point out what some of their crazy member's are doing. Outside of the ground zero Mosque debate none of these other ones made the national news in any prominent way. That doesn't make sense. Its like Obama coming out about how he doesn't support violence because some union thug beat someone up. Even though that story never made the national news. Its counter productive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Weren't you saying before how Muslims should denounce the behavior of Muslim extremists? :noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Actions of Muslim extremists make the national news. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And these things make Muslim news. Why piss off 1% of the electorate?
Back to square one - its not common. Its only the really crazies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
By failing to denounce them, you prove otherwise. 85% of Muslims voted for Obama, despite generally being socially conservative and not being fans of his foreign policy.
Tbh, kinda not. But even if they were, how well do you think that part of your system is working?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
See the problem is that it isn't a theory and pretending/insisting that it is affirms the anti-science image of the party. Meanwhile, "evolution" is about as close to "fact" as you can get in "science". <do you think scientists may perhaps be interested in not giving power to a party that is anti-science?Quote:
As for ID - what of it? Its taught as a theory that a good chunk of the populace agrees with! Its taught right next to other theories like evolution. If a teacher taught ID as "fact" then there would be an issue. In reality though this another retarded symbolic debate. Kids don't even pay attention to class anyway. As far as electoral strategies I don't think that's true.
E. You can try to spin things as much as you like, but when people turn on their TV or tune into their radio, they hear Republican pundits and politicians blasting away at secularism. What's the point? It's not going to get any more Evangelicals to vote Republican, but it will keep secular conservatives from voting Republican.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
F. The last major amnesty was passed by the Paragon of Virtue himself, Ronald Reagan. Breaking the law is bad. Refusing to acknowledge reality is worse.
G. That's your problem. Science isn't judged by what "chunk of the population agrees with" it. Neither does science have a theory vs. fact dichotomy that you mention. The key distinction for scientists is between science and pseudo-science. By equating the two, you're turning a vast majority of scientists against the GOP (even those who don't give a damn about evolution). One, it shows that the GOP has a profound lack of understanding of what science is. And two, it shows a willingness by the GOP to compromise values like dedication to truth for the sake of getting the crazy vote. Rather odd when you're not willing to sacrifice your principles to help the weak, but are more than happy to do it to get more votes from the insane.
H. For most Americans, neither the UN nor foreign aid are issues of importance (a vast majority of Americans also don't have any idea how much we spend on either, and tend to overestimate both by several levels of magnitude). Any time the GOP blasts away at the two, it makes enemies in the policy community (and friends in the militia circles I suppose, if those are the votes you'd prefer). As a result, most of the top analysts want nothing to do with the GOP, which reinforces the idiotic foreign policy preached by many Republican politicians.
I. It's a rather odd trend when it's been broken for the last four decades. Or perhaps government revenue increased to pay for the creation of a welfare state, but has largely stayed the same since that took place in the 1930s to 1960s.
J. The difference being that the Tea Party extremists are dictating the debate in GOP circles, and even moderate Republicans have to make statements of support for the Tea Party (which inevitably backfire in the general election). I don't recall the Democratic leadership coming out in favor of WTO protests.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...tial-race/?hpw
Interesting that for all the talk about polls being systematically biased against Romney, they were actually mostly wrong in the opposite direction. :noob:
GGT Romney writing his concession speech at the last minute means absolutely nothing. Concession speeches are always written after the polls close, even if the underdog realises he has little real chance can you imagine if his speech leaked?
No, ID is not taught in public schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Since Kitzmiller v Dover showed ID for the creationism it is, back in 2005.
It wasn't taught to me, and thus far my kids haven't had it forced on them. You can't very well teach the scientific method then turn around and teach something like ID.
There is absolutely zero scientific evidencebehind ID. It is religion and should be left to the chapel, it has no role in a science class.