What’s Wrong with the World

The GOP can't completely reverse on abortion. Such would immediately drop them from a 49% party to a 19% party. What they can do is teach their candidates some rhetorical skills to avoid making disastrous gaffes. Politically, abortion is problematic because of Roe v Wade. On other issues the GOP could make tactical compromises, but with RvW in place these are precluded and the only ways to remove it are either overturning it or an amendment, neither of which are going to happen. States could also go into open revolt and just make their own abortion laws, but that's very risky. RvW is really a very extremist decision. The good news is that younger people are trending anti-abortion, or at least anti-abortion-on-demand.

More abstractly, there's no point in trying to out-left the left. People would like an alternative, they just don't like the current one on offer. If the Democrats are so powerful there is no way to actually oppose them, then we are at secession whether anyone likes it or not.

Amnesty...no. It's a loser. Republicans like it because they are in hock to business interests that love cheap labor, but it would have an effect similar to reversal on abortion in that the Republican base would revolt and Hispanics would shrug. They vote Democrat because of social and economic policies, or maybe perceptions. Republicans could possibly make inroads with Hispanics by opposing the drug war and NAFTA.

The GOP can win on free trade, illegal immigration, and affirmative action. All three are widely hated. Coming out in a big way against corporatism would also help, though that is more rhetorical than policy. Personally, if the GOP cared what I thought, I would say propose increasing the capital gains tax by a decent amount, maybe even all the way up to the top income rate. It would have a "Nixon goes to China" effect. And whatever else is done, foreign military adventurism has to end.

What they can do is teach their candidates some rhetorical skills to avoid making disastrous gaffes.

Shrug. The left is determined to _create_ gaffes if none are made spontaneously. If they ask a candidate who doesn't accept the morality of the rape exception what he thinks, and he answers honestly, they will turn that into a gaffe even if he should speak with the tongues of men and of angels. My take is that we should shrug off these media-created faux hysterics, gird our loins not to compromise further on the issue, and stand by our candidates rather than giving the vague impression that principled pro-lifers are an embarrassment. And throwing duly-primary-elected candidates under the bus is hardly even a smart strategic move.

Personally, if the GOP cared what I thought, I would say propose increasing the capital gains tax by a decent amount, maybe even all the way up to the top income rate.

Hardly a wise idea in the middle of a recession when we *want* people to invest.

That the GOP alienated women this year is a myth. Obama received LESS of the women's vote this election than last election.

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/women-are-not-a-unified-voting-bloc/265007/

"I have read some conservative commentary that suggests a more populist economic message (e.g. break up the big banks and end the collusion between big government and big corporations) might start to win some of the more working class Hispanic voters over to the GOP, just as that message might help us with white working class voters. This is a topic that deserves further exploration."

Hmmm, now where have I heard something like that before? Can anyone help me out?

If an policy is just, support it. If it is unjust, do not. But if we support policies simply to win swing-states, or marginal constituencies, we might as well hand our governments over to statisticians.
Worrying times.

"I'd rather lose elections for the right reasons than try to win them for the wrong ones."
Amen

Mark Shea likes to point out Screwtape's statement that Satan loves to convince people to give up their souls and get nothing in return. That's exactly what would happen if the GOP ran to the left on immigration and social issues. Nobody is going to vote for Democrat-lite when they can just vote Democrat.

Still, the GOP is in a tough spot because their coalition is under more tension than the Dem's. Obama's evolution on gay marriage prevented them from breaking along the most obvious fault line, while it seems Republicans point the finger at social cons after every defeat. In addition to the other prescriptions, I think Republicans have to try to break off vulnerable parts of the Dem coalition. I can't imagine the God-booing at the convention went over well with Bart Stupak type Dem. Aggressively courting them with something like school choice might pay some dividends.

I can't imagine the God-booing at the convention went over well with Bart Stupak type Dem.

To the extent that there are any of those left. Are there? Really?

Can the GOP ever appeal to low-income voters who depend on government programs for survival?

Can the GOP appeal to middle-income voters by nominating a plutocrat? In a campaign where the economy was front and center, 91% of Obama voters claimed he better understood their economic struggles. In the national polls Obama held a small lead over Romney on general economic issues, despite all the attempts by the GOP to turn the recession into a millstone. By taking on Ryan as his running mate Romney as much as admitted he was going to dismantle the social safety net in order to create more tax breaks for the wealthy. The only reason Romney improved his standing in the polls was when he brazenly mislead the public about his own budget plans during the first debate, combined with a distracted and lethargic performance by Obama. Don't get me wrong, all politicians lie, but Romney was in a league of his own. Fortunately, his most deceptive economic attack was strongly rebuked by Chrysler management.

The GOP is fast losing touch with reality. I left the Republican party after 34 years because they actively fought against what I believe in (limited government, non-interventionist foreign, economic and domestic policy, sound money, and personal freedom).

It might be sour grapes but I was happy to see them lose. If you push away people who by all rights should be under your "big tent", you deserve to get beat!

Good riddance!

Free trade extremism is one thing killing the GOP. Cheap goods with few working class jobs is worse than more expensive goods with a decent number of working class jobs. So, yes, had the GOP come out for cracking down on illegals (i.e. you can sell it as helping Hispanics who are already here), a moratorium on legal immigration, and economic nationalism, they would have probably won by getting more white working class voters and peeling off 10%-15% more of the Hispanic vote. They don't call them the stupid party for nothing.

Of course, had the majority Catholics (50%-48%) actually voted Romney, he might have won. But it's only going to get worse since 75% of Catholic Hispanics went for Romney. The irony is the Catholic church is encouraging the entry of the very people that are voting against the teachings of the church. I expect the church will roll-over soon on the HHS mandate.

Step2,

This is your first warning. If you write anything as stupid as "...he was going to dismantle the social safety net in order to create more tax breaks for the wealthy" you will be banned from further comment on this post.

I actually think you raise an interesting point about that 91 percent figure, but the lesson there I think for Republicans is not to let the Dems get away with lying about your candidate's personal character and story. In many ways Romney's career and life was deeply admirable (outside of politics) and the GOP should have done a better job of defending Bain Capital and his long track record of private charity.

Chris,

I think you are wrong about the Church -- those HHS lawsuits are proceeding full steam ahead and I think they have an excellent chance of succeeding at the Supreme Court.

Jeff, you are right about lots and lots of the bishops, and other clerics.

Unfortunately, Chris is right from the standpoint of (a) the typical Catholic business owner, and (b) the typical Catholic non-profit that is not directly controlled by a diocesan bishop. There has already been at least one entity that simply chose, by its board of directors, to stop being a Catholic entity, and then they (apparently) felt just fine going ahead and getting the insurance.

The real question is this: what will the bishops and priests do about Catholic business men who buy the insurance as mandated? Will they do anything? If not, the clear, unavoidable answer can be seen with the result of the contraception battle in 1968 and Humanae Vitae. The bishops chose not to take any over action to dissent, and now at least 80% of "Catholics" are willing to use contraceptives. It's probably closer to 90%. True members of the Church who still accept and follow the entirety of doctrine will dwindle from the current 10% of "Catholics" to a trivial 2%.

The bishops, through good legal maneuvering, are somewhat likely to win the HHS mandate battle for explicitly Catholic institutions. It is far less clear that they will be able to win it for the standard Catholic businessman. If Justice Roberts follows his own trope in his breathtaking decision, he will decide in favor of formally Catholic institutions not being bound by the mandate, but my suspicion is that he will locate some basis for denying that freedom of conscience to businessmen.

I doubt they have much of a chance now unless the existing SC members hang on. The court is likely to swing hard left over the next four years. I would expect the Feds to run out the clock on the HHS cases until they get the right court balance. Then expect a narrowly tailored decision that limits things to completely non-secular institutions. Pretty much what Tony says.

Hardly a wise idea in the middle of a recession when we *want* people to invest.

Raising it to 20% from 15% isn't going to destroy the economy. At this point, tax increases of some kind are probably unavoidable. The Democrats will not agree to any spending cuts without. I would much rather see the capital gains tax go up than the income tax.

On abortion, Akin lost huge in a seat that should have been a relatively easy win for a Republican. Republicans need to learn how to outmaneuver a hostile media, sticking to the guns obviously isn't working.

The Democrats offer 8 Presidential Councils for Women,the repubs none.(no councils for men)
The Demo's offer 148 specific provisions for women in Obamacare,no word from the repubs.(no provisions for men)
Perhaps if the Repubs offered instant conviction of men upon female accusation that would be enough?
Obviously the presumption of guilt of men in the colleges went along way to satisfying the female imperative.
Men are already 2nd class citizens,where can you go from there w/o backlash?
Is this blog conservative enough to post this?
If not,that is what is wrong with the right,they keep alienating what could be the core constituency.

Raising it to 20% from 15% isn't going to destroy the economy.

It's not going to cause the sun to explode either, and it's not going to cause a black hole to devour the earth. But it still would be massively harmful to economic growth, even if it doesn't literally destroy the economy, destroy the earth, or cause a zombie apocalypse. There's also little reason to think that a 33% increase in capital gains taxes would purchase a compromise from the Democrats on spending that would come anywhere close to repairing the long-term spending problem we've got.

So no, I can't see a single advantage and I see lots of downside, even if "taxes of some kind" are unavoidable.

sticking to the guns obviously isn't working.

Matt, it might be nice if we would actually try sticking to the guns! Sure, Akin blundered, but his party immediately and _totally stupidly_ (and I mean this from a strategic perspective) threw him under the bus with no viable plan B. It was so suicidal in party terms that it really gave the strong impression that the party would rather lose the seat to a Democrat than appear "insensitive" by continuing to support their candidate. I was disgusted with them. The party lost that seat for him by vicious and deliberate abandonment rather than sticking by him. And the Mourdock incident made it clear just how hostile the media was and how determined to create faux "incidents" where none existed.

All this talk about taxation misses the point entirely. All spending is taxation. Everything paid out has to be paid for somehow - whether it's through current taxation or by piling debt on future generations. Spending is the problem! Cutting spending is the solution.

The GOP is fast losing touch with reality.

Chucky, that's true to some extent. In addition, the Dems have not had even a phone call with reality in the last 20 years. The Libertarian Party never has had contact with reality, having been born "out of the forehead of Zeus" more or less, and given that Zeus is a fictitious character, that tells you where Libertarian Party's contact with reality sits. Then the Green, Socialist, Communist, the Third Position party, the Objectivist Party, and a host of even LESS important entities, are also way out in space reality-wise.

I would not put the Constitution Party in that group, but I don't know how solid a hold on reality a party can have if it has NEVER fielded a successful candidate. Seems to me that one of the critical facets of practical political wisdom is knowing when you can actually achieve something, and if you can't garner enough agreement between people to get ONE candidate elected, your "party" is problematic.

I would say that for third parties (or perhaps we shd. just call them "additional" parties) there are two possible goals. One is to serve as a kind of seed that might later grow into something more successful. You have to start somewhere, and so forth. Two is to give disgruntled voters a way to send a signal to a more mainstream party: "We exist, you could court us if you wanted to, if you were interested." I have seen people on Facebook recently suggesting that "we need a third party." At that point I point out to them that it would be easier, if there are quite a few of them, to *take over* either the Constitution Party or (even easier) America's Party and shape its policies and make it more successful than to start a third third party for conservatives!

Raising it to 20% from 15% isn't going to destroy the economy. At this point, tax increases of some kind are probably unavoidable. The Democrats will not agree to any spending cuts without. I would much rather see the capital gains tax go up than the income tax.

Ironically, one of the only smart things Tim Kaine said in the VA Senate race was that we will have to raise taxes on the rest of society. George Allen ran ads to the left of him, denouncing the fact that Kaine would have people making as little as $17k actually paying taxes. Ironically, Kaine took the more conservative position on that issue.

What we really need is for the GOP to take a position that is in favor of tax increases on all classes in exchange for both cuts and consolidations of programs. The 47%/53% "issue" can be partly alleviated by finding ways to make the majority of the 47% have to pay a hefty portion of their income every pay check in taxes before receiving any benefits back (we must be careful to eliminate credits and shift benefits to the programs they use so they never get a sense that the money wasn't really taken from them).

I would not put the Constitution Party in that group, but I don't know how solid a hold on reality a party can have if it has NEVER fielded a successful candidate. Seems to me that one of the critical facets of practical political wisdom is knowing when you can actually achieve something, and if you can't garner enough agreement between people to get ONE candidate elected, your "party" is problematic.

I don't think that's entirely fair. The ballot requirements alone are like jumping through flaming hoops for a party trying to get established. If we were to repeal the arbitrary size limit of 435 representatives in the House and let the House swell to several thousand members as our founders would have wanted it, you'd have states like California with a few hundred representatives. Couple that with proportional representation, you'd have a much easier time sending a non-Dem/Repub delegration to Congress.

Tony:

I don't know how solid a hold on reality a party can have if it has NEVER fielded a successful candidate.

No third party presidential candidate was able to get on the ballot in all 50 states (the Libertarians came closest with 48). The presidential debates are staged by the two parties. The media ignores anything without a D or an R by its name and reports as if there were only two candidates running. Polling organizations often only consider the two parties in their polls. We were inundated with Barack Obama and Mitt Romney references, on every type of media, every day, right up 'til the election, but mention Gary Johnson or Jill Stein and the average American would say "Who?"

It reminds me of the story about the Soviet Communist who said, "We have elections in our country but everyone knows they're rigged because we only have one party on the ballot. You Americans have figured it out - you have two parties!"

I do think ballot access is a real issue, but I don't know the details. AFAIK, requirements are set on a state-by-state basis, which I support as a good federalist, but as Mike T says, it's like jumping through flaming hoops, and that seems problematic.

Most people will shy away from doing a write-in candidate even if the write-in candidate has filed the relevant paperwork to be a "qualified" write-in, so that votes for him will count. Here the CP has made more progress than America's Party, being actually *on* the ballot in a number of states rather than merely a qualified write-in, as Tom Hoefling of America's Party was. Still, I think America's Party has more mainstream views and is, if we're interested in expanding our options, something to consider seriously. It is likely to attract more conservatives and seem to people less quirky than the CP if only it can get off the ground somewhat more. To some extent its current situation is a function of its youth. I believe it's only been around for four years. Some millionaire should put some money into beefing it up.

Two is to give disgruntled voters a way to send a signal to a more mainstream party: "We exist, you could court us if you wanted to, if you were interested."

In my opinion it would hasten the process if conservatives who live in deep blue states and liberals who live in deep red states, who are only contributing to the popular vote but doing nothing for the electoral vote, to vote third party to express their dissatisfaction. That is what I did this year, for what it's worth.

So long as the two main parties control a near-monopoly on final vote tallies, we aren't even letting the politicians or the media know that there is serious discontent with both major political parties.

Step2 makes a good point. If you are a California conservative, you win nothing by electing a liberal Republican who can challenge a liberal Democrat. Your vote for a Constitution Party candidate not only registers a vote of no confidence in the Republicans, but it has the additional benefit of helping them get on the ballot in the next election (I believe most states have a rule that if you get X% of the vote, you are automatically added to the next ballot if you register a candidate).

Lydia, in Virginia the state doesn't even allow write-in candidates. At least not for state-wide office. At this point the ballot process leaves no room for any sort of write-in.

Mike, I am not sure what you mean by "jumping through flaming hoops." In VA, the requirement is 10,000 signatures, (including 400 from each congressional district), for national or state-wide office, 1,000 for a House race. That doesn't seem outrageous to me. Some states have higher bars, some lower. A lot seem to require signatures between 1% to 2% of the number of ballots cast in the last election as the bar.

What we need are mechanisms to make it more worthwhile to either RUN on another ticket, or to VOTE on another ticket, aside from the 2 main parties. My proposal is to make each congressional district 3 times as large, and give seats to the 3 highest vote-getters, (and not allow any party more than 1 candidate per district, of course). That would guarantee lots of viable parties.

Tony, this came up on a googling:

At all elections except primary elections it shall be lawful for any voter to vote for any person other than the listed candidates for the office by writing or hand printing the person's name on the official ballot. No check or other mark shall be required to cast a valid write-in vote. Write-in votes for President and Vice President shall be counted only for candidates who have filed a joint declaration of intent to be write-in candidates for the offices with the Secretary of the State Board not less than ten days before the date of the presidential election. The declaration of intent shall be on a form prescribed by the State Board and shall include a list of presidential electors pledged to those candidates which equals the whole number of senators and representatives to which the Commonwealth at that time is entitled in the Congress of the United States. A write-in vote cast for candidates for President and Vice President, or for a candidate for President only, shall be counted for the individual electors listed on the declaration of intent as pledged to those candidates.

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+24.2-644

So actually it looks like in Virginia as in other states there are such things as qualified write-in candidates who can become so simply by timely filing of a notice of intent.

"All spending is taxation."
Including the $billions spent on the anti-family lesbian driven VAWA system,which deprives men of their 4th Amendment rights.
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-47.htm
Choosing not to print a post addressing the anti-family court system means you are part of the problem.
Hypocrites.
"I never knew you"

Lydia, thanks. I have seen "official" documents from the voting people saying that write-ins are not legal here. Huh, they turn out to be cooking their own theories.

Given the method our ballots are dealt with, I strongly doubt that a write-in would ACTUALLY be counted, anyway: we use a marker to fill in ovals next to a name, and then feed the card-stock type ballot into a machine which "reads" the ovals filled. Sure, after that someone could theoretically go through each and every ballot to see if there is something written on it instead of an oval filled in, but there is no special reason to think that this is carried out, certainly no basis for confidence that it is carried out carefully.

Whipple, this web-site HAS actually commented on anti-family court systems. Go look them up. Stop criticizing what you don't know, and show some respect for people.

We have the same voting system, Tony. In several (all?) of the races, certainly the one for President, there are blank spaces *with ovals after them* for possible write-ins. So what the machine would read is that the oval was filled in by a blank for a write-in candidate, and then someone would presumably have to go and read it by hand to see if it was a duly registered write-in candidate (had filed a motion of intent within the requisite time period).

We don't have those blank spaces.

>> immigration is not the issue that is driving them to pull the lever for the Democrats.

Sure, but the problem for many Republicans is their persistent belief the issue is an effective wedge issue to win Republican votes. So they argue against illegals getting state benefits to try to win votes, instead of arguing for reducing or eliminating state benefits and libertarian economic principles generally, as they should be. Without that the natives alone will bankrupt us all on our present course in time anyway.

And not all National Review writers agree with MacDonald. I think Mona Charen basically has it. She uses the word "bellicosity," and she's right if you watched the Republican primary debates. Romney thought he had to get to the right of Perry to stay in the running. And she points out the irony that Obama solved the problem of illegals wanting to come here by tanking the economy, not that the Republicans would ever go non-alarmist on the matter. And she's not the only one asking why the Asians went heavily to Obama too. The Republicans are toxic on immigration because they think it gets them Republican votes.

@Tony-
Thank you for the correction.
You are correct, I have been over zealous in my approach and my comments are lacking in fine detail and substance.
I will be more careful and use more effort in future comments,if any.
Thanks to the admin staff for posting my comment,apologies for the 'hypocrite' snipe.

Mark, I am puzzled about your comment. I am also puzzled about the Hispanic* vote. These are people who are (I am going to presume, maybe naively) legal voters. Therefore, they are citizens. Therefore, they were immigrants** and went through the immigration process to legally obtain residency, and eventually citizenship. Therefore, they know the immigration process can be successfully worked through, and they know that the process includes important safeguards for the general welfare. In spite of that, they knowingly chose to vote for Obama, rather than the republican, because (so goes the theory) Obama made it easier for illegal aliens to stay here and to get jobs, while the republicans all would have made it easier to enforce the existing law, having the effect of making it harder for illegal aliens to stay here and to get illegal jobs.

See, to me that looks almost EXACTLY AND FORMALLY like the Hispanic voter saying "I choose the personal gain of my illegal personal friend (or family member) over the good of the country."

Maybe the republicans should have hidden a real and definite commitment to uphold law and order. Maybe they should have put on a facade of being friendly to illegals that they didn't mean. But then, of course, we would have (rightly) called them sleazy, slimy politicians and not wanted to vote for such impostors. Or, alternatively, they should have wanted to ignore the law (like the dems) and simply allow the continued flouting of our nation's immigration rules. Or (3rd option) they could have instead pushed to re-vamp immigration law so that there is no legal barrier to any alien who wants to come here, settle in, take a job, etc. (Of course, the dems could out-do that proposal by not only removing all LEGAL barriers to aliens coming here, but actively paying for poor aliens to come here and live free of any demands on them.)

Personally, I cannot view any of these three options as better than the republicans supporting the rule of law and supporting immigration laws as necessary basic limits on who can come here. And I don't understand why you would comment to the effect that this implies being "toxic on immigration." If being in favor of obeying the law means you cannot be elected in a general election, well that just says our country is very badly off indeed, it does not say we should cease to uphold the rule of law.

* I don't mean to single out Hispanics as such, the comments apply to all sorts of immigrant groups.

** Admittedly, many of the Hispanics now legal voters are the children of 1st generation immigrants. That does not explain away the problem: either they are the children of legal immigrants, and we ought to be able to presume that these legal immigrants would pass on to their children their own respect for basic law and order; or they are the children of illegal immigrants, and then the fact that they support the personal gain of other illegal immigrants over the common good shows EXACTLY WHY WE SHOULD STOP BEING COMPLACENT with illegals inhabiting our land, and their having children without those children being inculturated to American society.

There is actually a simpler reason why the Republicans keep losing Hispanics: most Hispanic countries have leftist political cultures. Mexico, our biggest source of them, is divided between two different flavors of Socialist parties by American standards. Only an open borders ideologue could look at that and sincerely believe that most of what flows over the border would somehow get the Socialism filtered right out of their system upon hitting the sweet free soil of the US of A.

If the Republican Party wants to appeal to Mexicans, it's really simple. Adopt the platform of the PRI. They held office for several generations, so they must be doing something right.

Similarly, Michigan Republicans should look to the Muslim Brotherhood for inspiration. They just won a landslide in Egypt. Let's see how wide we can make this tent, people.

The 'Hispanic question' is interesting because it is directly tied to election fraud. I think it's safe to say that there is a large block of illegal immigrants who vote in this country. Election observers are often tasked with ensuring that poll workers do not ask for any form of ID. Couple that with the ample possibilities for electronic vote manipulation and you have to wonder whether we really have free and fair elections after all.

As for ballot access: Oklahoma has the strictest ballot access laws (signatures amounting to 5% “of the votes cast for the office at the top of the previous ticket,” within 90 days). Needless to say, Obama and Romney were the only two candidates on the OK ballot. Michigan has a "sore loser law" that prohibits a candidate from leaving one party and joining another while running for the same office in the same election (thus Gary Johnson was only able to qualify as a write-in candidate in MI). The Republican party also filed lawsuits seeking to keep Johnson off the ballot in in DC, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington. These lawsuits, even if unsuccessful, take valuable resources away from the limited campaign funds available to third party candidates.

The biggest hindrance though is media presence. Nobody, other than dedicated politicos, even knows about these parties and what they stand for. Here in Oregon, there were 5 presidential candidates on the ballot and most people I talked to were thoroughly confused as to who "the other three" were. There was virtually no media coverage of anyone outside the Democrat and Republican parties for all races - even state and local.

I don't know if there is an orchestrated effort to keep the media from covering "fringe" candidates or if it's just journalistic laziness. (After watching Fox News desperately trying to "ignore" Ron Paul's early primary successes though, I'm afraid it might actually be the former!) To a member of a third party, it really looks like media outlets have prohibitions, put in place from on high, against covering anything other than the prescribed "mainstream".

Chucky, I have generally assumed that the "sore loser" laws are quite reasonable, but I am willing to be shown why not. If Johnson is convinced of the Republican platform enough to want to not only vote Republican, but actually put himself forward for office and assume a leadership role for it, shouldn't that say something about him that precludes the possibility that he would forsake the party if he loses the nomination? Shouldn't he, if he believes in the party, stick with the party even if it doesn't select him?

There is actually a simpler reason why the Republicans keep losing Hispanics: most Hispanic countries have leftist political cultures.

That would explain why even a Hispanic-friendly Republican would have trouble getting more than 50% of the Hispanic vote. It would not explain why the Hispanic vote changed so dramatically from 2008 to 2012. Pundits (on both sides of the aisle) are saying that its because of the Obama measures that pander to illegals. Are they right?

Shouldn't he, if he believes in the party, stick with the party even if it doesn't select him?

Well, that would suggest that these men (most? all?) don't deserve to be considered leaders of the party, if they have no intention of fighting for what the party holds. If this is common, then political parties are themselves pointless. Maybe that's true, but the reason would not be because too many candidates ran afoul of the sore-loser laws. If we "need" to allow men to escape the party when the party won't nominate them, then we need to ditch the party concept altogether.

Perhaps so. I must admit that I went straight ticket Republican this election, but not out of any loyalty to the party but because the Republican candidates were candidates I could support and all the high profile Democrats were very repugnant or ridiculous in their beliefs. I would most likely have voted the same way even if all the candidates had been independents.

Certainly judicial elections should be non partisan, and they are in many States, although not here in Texas.

[Mark says: --Ed.]

See, to me that looks almost EXACTLY AND FORMALLY like the Hispanic voter saying "I choose the personal gain of my illegal personal friend (or family member) over the good of the country."

Maybe the republicans should have hidden a real and definite commitment to uphold law and order. Maybe they should have put on a facade of being friendly to illegals that they didn't mean.

Tony, I don't believe that the Republican position I'm speaking of is one of "law and order." I believe they think that immigrants from south of the border are polluting the culture. They put on a facade of being friendly to immigrants from south of the border they don't mean all the time. That is why Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush object to this tone. They aren't any less for law and order, nor am I. They just don't happen to think these folks pollute our culture. There is a struggle within the party, where one side wants to define it as the anti-immigration party. I think this is beyond doubt.

What Romney or any Republican should have done is said "Look, if I'm president I'm not going to try to pass a comprehensive immigration law, because I'm not for comprehensive laws of any form, and because I don't believe in large and complicated legislation. It never works well, and this is a new time. I also don't favor large and comprehensive for our "health care" system." He could go on to say why small incremental legislation is better for anyone. That never happened. What happened is that Republicans tried to outdo each other on the issue in the primaries by advocating fences and regulations, and then predictably reversed course in the general and advocated a comprehensive bill. Is anyone fooled by this? If that isn't a facade I don't know what is.

Romney lost because the Dems did a much better job of getting out their base. Which segment of the GOP base chose not to show up? The white working class. The Republicans' economic message, such as it was, simply did not resonate. Like it or not, the GOP is seen as a party that has the interests of the wealthy and the corporations in mind, along with their seeming espousal of the idea that's what's good for them is good for everybody (rising tide lifts all boats, etc.)

I would contend that plutocracy is in the GOP's DNA and that getting the party to move away from that mentality is akin to getting the Dems to move away from espousing the sexual revolution. What's interesting, however, is that if the GOP did take a more "populist" or decentralist line, they would not only grab the working-class no-shows, they would probably pick up a lot of support from the more socially conservative Hispanic working class as well. Working peoples' interests and concerns aren't all that different, regardless of their ethnicity.

Nice Marmot is basically right, that if Romney had picked up a larger share of working class whites in Ohio, PA, WI, maybe MI or Minnesota as well, he may have won those states and may have even been pushed over the edge in FL and VA. Coming out against NAFTA in particular and free trade ideology in general would have done wonders.

However, I don't think terms like "social conservative" really mean anything outside of the specific context of white Americans. Blacks and Hispanics are often against abortion or gay marriage in the abstract, but they don't vote based on these things, don't seem to believe them very strongly, and wouldn't ever describe themselves as "socially conservative". Blacks in particular wouldn't have voted for Romney even if he were Santa. Blacks vote Democrat because they don't like white people and the Dems are the party of anti-white resentment.

That would explain why even a Hispanic-friendly Republican would have trouble getting more than 50% of the Hispanic vote. It would not explain why the Hispanic vote changed so dramatically from 2008 to 2012.

It didn't change that much, only going from 67% in 2008 to 71% in 2012. Some Hispanics are probably voting anti-white resentment as well, but I suspect the majority just didn't like Mitt Romney and saw him as a robber baron.

There's another factor as well, which is the coolness deficit. The Democrats are cool, the Republicans might just be the antithesis of cool at this point. Obama in particular is a very cool president. This has less to do with the Hispanic vote and more to do with the youth vote (though Hispanics do trend younger). The Republicans were briefly cool in the 80s, but have been laughably square since then.

Well, I agree with you that as a generality our Hispanic immigrants do not pollute the culture. But I would say that having an attitude (as an illegal) that it's OK to come here in violation of law does damage the culture - the mere fact of your being here illegally does it. And I would say that having an attitude (as a legal immigrant) that you will vote to keep on making it easy for illegals to stay here in violation of law also damages the culture. And I would say that BOTH of these attitudes, since they affect vote outcomes and therefore affect politicians' goals, does pollute the political culture.

Thank God that there are many immigrants who do not contribute to these attitudes. But the change in percentage of votes by Hispanics for Obama can be traced more than a little to just these attitudes. That's affecting the outcomes of elections, and affecting how politicians decide how to rule.

I don't know to what extent the Republican anti-illegal-immigrant message became a central component of their campaigns, because I totally tune out media representations of campaigns. But I know that our media does in fact grossly distort campaign platforms, and it wouldn't surprise me to find that in the media the message of someone like Romney was much more focused on illegal immigration than it was in Romney's own words and thinking. This can be done easily and simply: if reporters always ask about illegal immigration, then Romney will be "always talking about it". But that's not reality, that's image manipulation.

I know for a fact that some Republicans take a principled approach to immigration, welcoming the legal kind, celebrating what immigrants have done for us, and rejecting the illegal kind. If the problem is that Republicans need to put their opposition to the illegal stuff into an image-controlled box, for the purposes of electioneering, are you saying that they need to pander? Or are you saying that they failed to get their true views before the public because the media distorted the picture?

There is a struggle within the party, where one side wants to define it as the anti-immigration party. I think this is beyond doubt.

I doubt that Romney is in the group that is trying to mold the GOP into the anti-immigration party.

By reason of party politics, you have to distinguish yourself from your own party's other candidates to be nominated. Presumably you and all the other GOP candidates already agree on where the GOP differs as a whole from the Dems (and from other parties), because those are big disagreements, those are the disagreements that enable you to call yourself a member of the GOP. So, if your opponents for the nomination are anti-immigration, and you are not, then THAT's one way to distinguish yourself from the in-party opposition. If the GOP ends up nominating you, then BY THAT VERY FACT it is establishing that the GOP does not really stand for anti-immigration. Should a pro-law and order immigrant vote FOR such a GOP candidate, to reward the GOP for picking the right sort of GOP representative as nominee and to support the law and order version of pro-immigration, or should he instead vote AGAINST such a GOP candidate, to punish the GOP for having (unsuccessful) neanderthal members who hate immigrants and reward the DEMs for being pro-immigration and anti-law and order?

See, any way you slice it, I keep coming up with the conclusion that significant numbers of immigrant voters are voting for Dems because Dems are in practice against immigration law.

It didn't change that much, only going from 67% in 2008 to 71% in 2012. Some Hispanics are probably voting anti-white resentment as well, but I suspect the majority just didn't like Mitt Romney and saw him as a robber baron.

OK, so you have to go back to 2004 to see a dramatic shift. Then the split was 53% to 44%. Going from 53% to 71% in 2 election cycles is dramatic.

[I]f the GOP did take a more "populist" or decentralist line, they would not only grab the working-class no-shows, they would probably pick up a lot of support from the more socially conservative Hispanic working class as well. Working peoples' interests and concerns aren't all that different, regardless of their ethnicity.

Can't disagree with any of that, and I always thought Romney's message was an unbelievably thin and unconvincing one. In a nutshell:

Q.: Governor Romney, what do you say to those people who insist you will sign an executive order on Day One of your Presidency, mandating Mexican construction workers surrender their wives to you for your personal gratification?

A: I say that while the people making such charges are wonderful people, the President just doesn't know how to create jobs. That why I will see to it that every Mexican construction worker's wife has a job.

Q: Urmmm, ok. But what about those who say you drink blood and turn into a bat at night?

A: I say such people obviously don't realize how many jobs I've created among bat box builders.

Q: Fine, but what happens when bat box builders no longer have access to contraception under your administration?

A: Well golly, with all the jobs I'll be creating, people won't even have TIME for contraception, if you get my drift.

Romney was subjected to the largest and most expensive campaign of personal demonization in the history of the human race, and his entire answer for three long, grinding months was--"Uhh--JOBS!" He enjoyed a bounce when he showed up to the first debate without horns, but after that his entire campaign reverted to the same tired Republican boiler plate about a rising tide lifting all boats. That message does not resonate in the aftermath of a massive collapse in the financial sector that basically every working class white person blames (however unjustly) on thieving bankers.

And as has been said, Romney spent six months courting independents, crushed Obama among that relatively small non-plurality of voters, and failed to get as many Republican votes as John McCain. For any Republican challenger to Barack Obama to fail to get out the Republican base is a perversely impressive feat, and he managed it by 1) neglecting the base completely (beyond making a right turn on immigration policy during the primary), assuming their hatred of Obama would get them to the polls, and 2) crafting a monomaniacal message that didn't give middle class whites any concrete reason to think he would do anything that might benefit them personally.

I think Matt is right that minority voters do not generally vote in connection with any socially conservative values. I think it's generally bad strategy to think of these groups as "natural conservatives" or anything like that. Other considerations--race, misguided economic priorities, a tradition of thinking of the Democrats as "their" party, and so forth--are overriding.

Q: Urmmm, ok. But what about those who say you drink blood and turn into a bat at night?

A: I say such people obviously don't realize how many jobs I've created among bat box builders.

Sage's comment is inimitable.

It is indeed inimitable.

There's a lot of idle speculation in this thread by men who are not friends of the GOP. I would recommending holding such animadversions for a party you have some real loyalty to. Whether any political party in America ought to earn any loyalty is another question. I'll just note the great innovators in the idea of opposing political parties presented it just thus: government and the (loyal) opposition. The achievement in that one parenthetical word is easily overlooked: Burke was among the first to propose a party, as against a faction, of politicians elevated by the impulse to loyal dissent. Over the bulk of human history the man in opposition was enemy of the state and traitor.

A corollary of that is of course that the oppositional coalition is very often composed of disparate elements liable to tear each other apart as much as their adversary. But the splitting up of the opposition only weakens it.

Tony:

If Johnson is convinced of the Republican platform enough to want to not only vote Republican, but actually put himself forward for office and assume a leadership role for it, shouldn't that say something about him that precludes the possibility that he would forsake the party if he loses the nomination? Shouldn't he, if he believes in the party, stick with the party even if it doesn't select him?

Johnson was the Republican governor of New Mexico, but he governed more like a Libertarian than a Republican. So he was an enigma. The one reason I don't fault him for leaving the Republican party was the fact that they excluded him from all the debates save one. Even when there were twelve candiadates running they wouldn't let him on stage! To me, this says more about the Republican party than it does about Johnson.

There used to be a strong 'liberty movement' in the Republican party that included elements of the Tea Party, Ron Paul supporters, Libertarians seeking a more powerful platform, and Pat Buchanan followers. The Republican party actively opposed these groups and tried to shut them out of the process (which is why I say there "used to be" a liberty movement).

I don't know who left who, but Johnson was not your typical "sore-loser". The saddest thing is that the Republican party managed to keep him off the ballot in MI ultimately because he filed his paperwork challenging his 'sore-loser' status 3 minutes late!!!

P.S. I'm going to start posting under my real name here. The 'Chucky Darwin' moniker was from a long defunct ID website I had so...

Paul J Cella :

There's a lot of idle speculation in this thread by men who are not friends of the GOP. I would recommending holding such animadversions for a party you have some real loyalty to.

I was a loyal Republican for 34 years. I never, EVER voted for a Democrat in my life!! I feel that I was betrayed by my party when I tried to hold them to the ideals that originally made me a Republican in the first place: limited government, freedom, and personal responsibility.

I have absolutely no loyalty to the party anymore - and they've earned it!

Romney lost because the Dems did a much better job of getting out their base.

I agree Daniel. My position is that the Republicans spent much of the primaries acting almost as if immigration was going to be a primary concern in the general, which was never going to happen, and never has happened. Moreover, unlike the Dems on Iraq in 08 (trying to outdo each other on the left), after the primaries were over there was no coherent position that came out of it that they wished to advance or even defend. Did you hear any objection when Romney endorsed "comprehensive immigration reform" at the end? Nope. It was so apparent that defeating Obama was the main goal that no one even cared by then. They should have known that all along. The entire Republican effort on that was a total waste of time, except that it was damaging to boot. The entire campaign was too ambiguous because of wishy-washy stuff like that, and it failed to excite the base.

I know for a fact that some Republicans take a principled approach to immigration, welcoming the legal kind, celebrating what immigrants have done for us, and rejecting the illegal kind.

I do too. But they are labeled "open borders" advocates or cheap labor or vote-pandering shills by the Reps who disagree with them, and we have the spectacle during the primaries I've described. And I don't think lack of enforcement of current immigration laws and lack of deportation alone is a complete description of the problem, though I'm not opposed to more of each as needed.

I suspect what you'll see in 2016 is some unabashed Republicans that just say no to their loudest members of their base on this issue. And they'll do just fine, and they articulate a moderate position that is more in line with how Americans think on the matter, which is how they actually vote in general elections. Many were apoplectic to see Romney chase the Paleo vote in the primaries. I'm not saying that is the main issue–it isn't–but the spectacle of the Republican response to the matter is distressing.

If the problem is that Republicans need to put their opposition to the illegal stuff into an image-controlled box, for the purposes of electioneering, are you saying that they need to pander? Or are you saying that they failed to get their true views before the public because the media distorted the picture?

The problem isn't the image, if there is a problem it would be that the image may be an accurate picture of a more negative understanding of immigration and assimilation than is warranted.

Chucky wasn't your real name!!! Oh no! I had this great mental image of you, bald with mutton chops (always in black and white, you know) - now I will have to completely revise it.

:-)

What's next - finding out the Nice Marmot doesn't even begin to look like a marmot? What is the world coming to?

Sage,

I'm late to the party, but your little Mitt press conference made my day.

Mark (and Tony),

Not surprisingly, I have to disagree with your whole take on the immigration question. I actually do want a Republican who proudly proclaims his opposition to ALL current unskilled immigration, as I do think such immigration is "polluting the culture" (how many times do I have to tell you this Mark -- 50 percent Hispanic out of wedlock birthdate is no way to help 'family values') and contributing to low wages for low skilled citizens of the U.S. I could also link to pieces by Heather Mac Donald and Victor Davis Hanson detailing all the problems we face from Hispanic immigrants (legal and illegal) or send you to CIS for more data and facts, but then you might object to my harsh tone or suggest I'm scaring voters, so I'll just say that an excellent commentary on this issue was just published by one of my favorite writers, Steve Sailer:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/slippery-six-mid-west-states-doom-romney-because-of-low-white-share

I do think such immigration is "polluting the culture" (how many times do I have to tell you this Mark -- 50 percent Hispanic out of wedlock birthdate is no way to help 'family values')

You needn't tell me any more Jeff, I knew it already. I was just stating a fact, not casting shame on anyone. Not my game.

But in Iceland 66% of children are born out of wedlock, and in Sweden 55%. Meanwhile in Japan it is 2%. Not sure what you want to make of this. For immigration policy, ban the Finns, Swedish, and the Latinos, and fast track the Japanese? But your "family values" data from MacDonald is cherry-picked. These same studies show Hispanic children living in two-parent households at 63% as of five years ago, whereas the rate for whites is 77%. Not quite so different. Blacks were at 35% for comparison.

Mark, I am pretty sure that the "two parent families" are NOT both the biological parents of all of the children - you are still looking at blended arrangements. Probably for all 3 groups, though, so probably all 3 numbers are affected, but I think the rate for intact black families is probably below 20%.

Immigration is a dead end. The problem is one of trust. Back in the 80's Reagan bartered an amnesty on the grounds that the border would be controlled. The amnesty happened and the border stayed wide open. So now we need another amnesty, that we're assured will also come with border enforcement provisions. But why would anyone trust them this time? We've played this game before. The reason conservatives have gone enforcement first is because the two parties have to prove they are serious about enforcement before any other reforms are considered. As it is, the Democrats are ideologically committed to open borders and the Republicans are "materially" committed, I guess you could say. Now that they've lost an election they could have won, the Republicans are taking advantage of the hysteria to push amnesty on us.

It was interesting: I saw an exchange on Facebook recently. Person A says something like, "Okay, I have an idea on immigration. First, we give amnesty and a path to citizenship to people who have been here five years and have been behaving themselves, productively employed, etc. Second, we make sure to give the same deal to people who have been here legally so they aren't disadvantaged. Third, we put a 30-year moratorium on further legal immigration so that we have time to assimilate the people who are already here." Immediately, friends of A come into the thread saying, "Great idea! Great post! I love 1 and 2. Y'know, we really don't need 3. I don't agree with you on that one." It was almost amusing. It was like a microcosm of why others don't trust "comprehensive immigration reform."

The GOP is fast losing touch with reality

Yes, but the real problem is that the electorate has lost touch with reality a while ago, and the GOP can't seem to catch up.

Chucky wasn't your real name!!! Oh no! I had this great mental image of you, bald with mutton chops (always in black and white, you know) - now I will have to completely revise it.

Ha ha!!

Mark, I am pretty sure that the "two parent families" are NOT both the biological parents of all of the children - you are still looking at blended arrangements.

Jeff, you didn't use any qualifiers at all, so I really don't know what you are trying to say here. Some, all, most? In any case, many out-of-wedlock births are from cohabiting parents. About 60% from all groups by figures that I think are fairly reliable as late as 2010. And with the divorce rate what it is many children born within a marriage move into "blended arrangements" without both biological parents living with them eventually.

Out-of-wedlock births skyrocketing is not at all good, but you were implying a comparison between ethnic groups without actually making one.

Oops, I guess I was replying to Tony's text. It wasn't Tony's comparison.

Mark, my intention was to suggest that the numbers you stated were (unintentionally) inflated. I don't know this, I am just going by a combination of all sorts of little bits and pieces of data. But it seems to me that even as far back as 10 years ago, we were seeing statistics like 50% of all marriages saw divorce within 10 years, and 50% of all kids saw their parents divorce. So, the mere fact of a kid living in a 2-parent house does not lead to the conclusion that he is living in an intact family with both of his biological parents who were married before he was born and never divorced - me definition of an intact family. I don't know if that is equally represented across the races or not. I suspect that divorce has a stronger impact on whites, and out of wedlock births have a stronger impact on blacks, but that doesn't suggest whether either force is showing up in greater numbers. Anecdotally: I know one black person who represents not one single "family" arrangement in 5 straight generations: grandmother to my friend to her grandson. Latinos probably have a huge number of people whose family is rent by either only part of the family coming here to begin with, or part of the grouping that is here being forced to leave.

Well the figures don't mean much if we use different definitions. I never expected that being born out-of-wedlock, a legal term, would be juxtaposed with "living in an intact family with both of his biological parents who were married before he was born and never divorced."

I never expected that being born out-of-wedlock, a legal term, would be juxtaposed...

I didn't know that "being born out-of-wedlock" was a legal term. At least, not STILL. I know that ages ago bastardy was significant for some legal purposes, such as inheritance, but I thought it stopped being so. Maybe I am just out to lunch today. Seems to me that paternity suits and legally enforced child support for children born out of wedlock has virtually eradicated the category for legal purposes. Pretty near, anyway.

My principal point, Mark, was to suggest that it wsan't enough to point to statistics on "children in 2-parent families" to find a good indicator of whose family life is more or less damaged by our damaging culture. It is the beginning of an indicator, but until you take into account children in a "family" who are living with a mom and a step-dad, or living with a dad and a step-mom, and reduce the "two parent families" by those step-situations, you aren't going to see who has intact families.