Have the Republicans figured out why they lost yet?

[KingOrfeo]

States rights is a stupid concept on it's face.

For you foreigners, "states' rights" is a phrase unique to American politics, and one which has never in American history been associated with anything good (with the arguable exception of some antebellum free states who balked at enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act).

 

[renard_ruse]

I see the Big Lie concocted by the media and the social liberal noise machine is continuing to be perpetuated.

If you people think the Republicans "lost" (if you call 48% against a popular incumbant "losing") due to "social issues" you are simply factually wrong. What is most ridiculous is Republicans themselves (and their consultant class) who apparently claim to study this stuff for a living also perpetuating an obvious factual untruth.

Just a quick studying of the numbers and you realize WHY Republicans are not doing well in some places (and correspondingly why they are doing well in others). Its called race / ethnicity. Its not "social issues," its not "age," its certainly not "sex" or "gender." The Democrats are choice of about 80% of non-whites while Republicans remain the party of about 55-60% of whites (probably an all time high in the post-FDR era). Whites in all major age groups and both sexes voted in a majority for Romney. Non-whites the opposite for Obama.

We can discuss the reasons for the racial polarization, but clearly this is not due to "social issues." In fact, blacks are more likely to oppose gay rights than whites yet vote for the Party of Gayness by a rate of over 90%. Hispanics certainly aren't any more likely to be pro-abortion than other groups and conventional wisdom assumes they are more pro-life due to Catholicism.

Furthermore, the whites who aren't voting Republican are more likely to be union members or lower income, traditionally Democrat groups due to economic issues not social issues.

 

[landslider2000]

There are cycles in politics, as Schlesinger Sr saw.

Ideas about the state of nature, and the emergence of social man, and what sort of social contract might be best, are older than Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, et al.

It is tempting to crow about some election win, but foolish to imagine that some lasting ideational victory has been secured.

 

[renard_ruse]

There are cycles in politics, as Schlesinger Sr saw.

Ideas about the state of nature, and the emergence of social man, and what sort of social contract might be best, are older than Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, et al.

It is tempting to crow about some election win, but foolish to imagine that some lasting ideational victory has been secured.

Good points.

 

[KingOrfeo]

We can discuss the reasons for the racial polarization, but clearly this is not due to "social issues."

Racial issues are social issues.

Furthermore, the whites who aren't voting Republican are more likely to be union members or lower income, traditionally Democrat groups due to economic issues not social issues.

Well, that ought to tell you something, and nothing good about Republicans.

 

[KingOrfeo]

There are cycles in politics, as Schlesinger Sr saw.

OTOH, there is no "pendulum." The cycles are never so regular as that.

 

[renard_ruse]

I waste my time with one more point here, the thing about Republicans being "old."

Who exactly are these "old" people today? For the most part they consitute two groups, the Korean War generation (the people who were in the prime of their life in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s) and Baby Boomers (the hippie leftist generation of teenagers from the 60s and early 70s). Now, I don't know that much about the Korean War generation's politics over the years (even though my folks fell into that group) but we all know that Boomers were known as the radical and hippie generation when they were young. Yes, not all of them, but on the whole they tended to be left leaning when they were teens and even into their middle age years. So, clearly these hippie-era folks have turned significantly to the Republicans.

I guess the point is that we aren't talking about people from the 19th century or something. Not only that it shows that voting patterns can change throughout an age group's lifetime. Generation Y, even the non-white majority among them, may very well eventually become more conservative politically. It can work the other way though too, as my generation was very politically conservative as teenagers and today we are more divided. I wouldn't put too much stock in the "old" means destined to die out argument.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I waste my time with one more point here, the thing about Republicans being "old."

Who exactly are these "old" people today?

Well, as to that, see the Strauss-Howe generational theory, in which the GIs (b. 1901-1924) are a Hero generation; the Silent (b. 1925-1942) are an Artist generation; the Baby Boomers (b. 1943-1960) are a Prophet generation; GenX (b. 1961-1981) are a Nomad generation; the Millennials (b. 1982-2004) are another Hero generation; and the Homelanders (b. 2004-present) are another Artist generation.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Doesn't change the fact . . .

Yes, it does.