How the Tea Party is Killing the Republican Party

[Oddball]

No, it's a stupid point.

All of the statistics in the world don't make you a mind reader or supreme distributor of uncast votes.

Ahhh the Karl Rove election night meltdown position.

I understand where you are coming from. It's tough to be a minority and you have very little practice at it.

Ahhh....The bullshit red herring deflection position.

Fact remains that you don't get to speak for people who said nothing.

 

[JWBooth]

I think the point others are trying to make (and that I agree with) is that when you take a moderate Republican (Romney, vintage 2008 and earlier) and twist him into a far-right leaning figure, surrounded by idiots and bigots, voters who reside in the middle, who might be actually looking for reasons to vote R, tend to get turned off by the surrounding messages. I am one of those voters. I have no problem voting R if the situation calls for it. I have no problem voting D if the situation calls for it. But in a race where there really isn't a great difference in quality between the two candidates, the anger spewed by the far, far right can easily turn one off to the party.

Taking somebody who is well known for being as firm in his positions as a bowl full of jello and trying to portray him as a rock ribbed conservative just wasn't going to gin up a lot of enthusiastic support.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Maybe it didn't start out that way, but the tea party is a bought and paid for adjunct of the GOP no less so than the Young Republicans.

Those whose number one priority was to make sure Obama was a one-term president figured out very quickly that they could use these people - who they viewed as "useful idiots" - to sling their long-form, muslim, communist mud without any of the backlash coming back to haunt them.

But, it IS coming back to haunt them.

 

[Oddball]

Maybe it didn't start out that way, but the tea party is a bought and paid for adjunct of the GOP no less so than the Young Republicans.

Those whose number one priority was to make sure Obama was a one-term president figured out very quickly that they could use these people - who they viewed as "useful idiots" - to sling their long-form, muslim, communist mud without any of the backlash coming back to haunt them.

But, it IS coming back to haunt them.

The way the election turned out, it's safe to say that a lot of the "useful idiots" stayed home.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think the point others are trying to make (and that I agree with) is that when you take a moderate Republican (Romney, vintage 2008 and earlier) and twist him into a far-right leaning figure, surrounded by idiots and bigots, voters who reside in the middle, who might be actually looking for reasons to vote R, tend to get turned off by the surrounding messages. I am one of those voters. I have no problem voting R if the situation calls for it. I have no problem voting D if the situation calls for it. But in a race where there really isn't a great difference in quality between the two candidates, the anger spewed by the far, far right can easily turn one off to the party.

Taking somebody who is well known for being as firm in his positions as a bowl full of jello and trying to portray him as a rock ribbed conservative just wasn't going to gin up a lot of enthusiastic support.

And yet the numbers show that those who identify themselves as conservatives supported him at the same level they supported Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Numbers don't lie.

Romney didn't lose because he wasn't conservative enough.

 

[regent]

The Democrats should do all in their power to keep the tea party alive and active. Maybe even to supplying them with more posters: KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE.

 

[martinjlm]

Only if you *ahem* assume all of those voters would've made the same mistake the second time.

Of course not. But for your "voters didn't turnout" assessment to be true, about 70% would've had to....<ahem>....change their minds. That didn't happen with those who DID vote, so why would that be more likely for those who didn't

You don't have positive proof with negative evidence, Corky.

Ehh?!? Proof that most who voted did not switch = election results
Proof that most who did not vote would've voted R = ?????????

Remember, I did not hoist this hypothetical voter turnout issue.....you did. I am not trying to prove anything, but I am looking for the foundation to your argument that Conservative voter turnout was the issue. You estimated the voter deficit at 10M. You stated that 8M were 2008 Obama voters. I am asking how those numbers that you provided add up to "Mitt lost because Conservatives didn't turn out".

And for the record, please refer to me as Martinjlm, or just plain Martin. Not Corky. And I will refer to you as Oddball or whatever else you may like to be called. Let's keep it civil and simple and leave the ad hominims out of this.

 

[insein]

Teapartiers are one of the best FREE recruiting tools the Left has. Keep it up T-Partiers

I think the point others are trying to make (and that I agree with) is that when you take a moderate Republican (Romney, vintage 2008 and earlier) and twist him into a far-right leaning figure, surrounded by idiots and bigots, voters who reside in the middle, who might be actually looking for reasons to vote R, tend to get turned off by the surrounding messages. I am one of those voters. I have no problem voting R if the situation calls for it. I have no problem voting D if the situation calls for it. But in a race where there really isn't a great difference in quality between the two candidates, the anger spewed by the far, far right can easily turn one off to the party.

So am I to assume you voted Bush in 2004 based on this philosophy? MoveOn.org crowd was much more vehement about what they wanted to happen with Bush than anything the Tea Party has said about Obama.

 

[martinjlm]

Teapartiers are one of the best FREE recruiting tools the Left has. Keep it up T-Partiers

I think the point others are trying to make (and that I agree with) is that when you take a moderate Republican (Romney, vintage 2008 and earlier) and twist him into a far-right leaning figure, surrounded by idiots and bigots, voters who reside in the middle, who might be actually looking for reasons to vote R, tend to get turned off by the surrounding messages. I am one of those voters. I have no problem voting R if the situation calls for it. I have no problem voting D if the situation calls for it. But in a race where there really isn't a great difference in quality between the two candidates, the anger spewed by the far, far right can easily turn one off to the party.

So am I to assume you voted Bush in 2004 based on this philosophy? MoveOn.org crowd was much more vehement about what they wanted to happen with Bush than anything the Tea Party has said about Obama.

As a matter of fact I did. Interestingly enough, for similar reasons. Kerry wasn't delivering a message I could believe, so I went with "the devil I know vs the devil that I couldn't define". I could care less about MoveOn.org and even less about Tea Party.

 

[nodoginnafight]

In the height of the "conservative revolution" in 1984, voters who identifiend themselves as conservative were 36% of the electorate. In 2012 that number was 35%.

The evidence strongly suggests that the conservative vote maxes out right about there.

So if you're short of votes - that ain't the place to look. Maybe you should look at the largest block of voters - moderates - that you lost by 15 points.

 

[Oddball]

In the height of the "conservative revolution" in 1984, voters who identifiend themselves as conservative were 36% of the electorate. In 2012 that number was 35%.

The evidence strongly suggests that the conservative vote maxes out right about there.

So if you're short of votes - that ain't the place to look. Maybe you should look at the largest block of voters - moderates - that you lost by 15 points.

The largest block of potential voters are those who stayed home....How many times do you need this to be pointed out before it permeates your thick skull?

 

[insein]

I think the point others are trying to make (and that I agree with) is that when you take a moderate Republican (Romney, vintage 2008 and earlier) and twist him into a far-right leaning figure, surrounded by idiots and bigots, voters who reside in the middle, who might be actually looking for reasons to vote R, tend to get turned off by the surrounding messages. I am one of those voters. I have no problem voting R if the situation calls for it. I have no problem voting D if the situation calls for it. But in a race where there really isn't a great difference in quality between the two candidates, the anger spewed by the far, far right can easily turn one off to the party.

So am I to assume you voted Bush in 2004 based on this philosophy? MoveOn.org crowd was much more vehement about what they wanted to happen with Bush than anything the Tea Party has said about Obama.

As a matter of fact I did. Interestingly enough, for similar reasons. Kerry wasn't delivering a message I could believe, so I went with "the devil I know vs the devil that I couldn't define". I could care less about MoveOn.org and even less about Tea Party.

Well then at least you're consistent.

 

[martinjlm]

In the height of the "conservative revolution" in 1984, voters who identifiend themselves as conservative were 36% of the electorate. In 2012 that number was 35%.

The evidence strongly suggests that the conservative vote maxes out right about there.

So if you're short of votes - that ain't the place to look. Maybe you should look at the largest block of voters - moderates - that you lost by 15 points.

The largest block of potential voters are those who stayed home....How many times do you need this to be pointed out before it permeates your thick skull?

But we still don't know WHO stayed home. I won't pretend to know who stayed home, but according to your earlier post, 80% of those who stayed home voted for Obama in 2008. Just trying to reconcile your math. What makes a large portion of that 80% vote for Romney?

 

[Oddball]

Where and when did I assign any of the no-shows to Romney?

 

[martinjlm]

Where and when did I assign any of the no-shows to Romney?

Re-read your posts, #19, 28, & 36. In those posts you say that the Republican ticket would have won if the no-shows had shown up. In your post #124 you say that based on the election results, it is apparent a lot of the "usefull idiots" did not turn out.

You did not SPECIFICALLY say "the no-shows would have gone to Romney", but you are clearly stating that if the no-shows had shown up, the result would have been different. If I am mistaken, I am certainly listening for where my logic may have jumped the tracks or where I may have mis-interpreted what you said in those posts

 

[nodoginnafight]

The numbers clearly suggest that the conservative vote tops out at about 36%. If Ronald Reagan running against Walter Mondale couldn't get more than a 36% turnout of conservative voters then I don't know who could.

Of course anything is possible. It is possible that people who don't show up at the polls would cast their ballots for Idi Amin if they showed up. But there is a huge difference between a pipe dream and a solid strategy.

The numbers clearly indicate that a solid strategy for the GOP is to moderate their positions - especially on social issues - if they are interested in winning elections. Unfortunately the Tea Party doesn't fit into that model.

 

[Oddball]

Where and when did I assign any of the no-shows to Romney?

Re-read your posts, #19, 28, & 36. In those posts you say that the Republican ticket would have won if the no-shows had shown up. In your post #124 you say that based on the election results, it is apparent a lot of the "usefull idiots" did not turn out.

You did not SPECIFICALLY say "the no-shows would have gone to Romney", but you are clearly stating that if the no-shows had shown up, the result would have been different. If I am mistaken, I am certainly listening for where my logic may have jumped the tracks or where I may have mis-interpreted what you said in those posts

I didn't assign those no-shows to anyone.

My point is and remains that there is a far greater pool of voters to be had amongst the no-shows, than trying to appeal to the squishy moderates who answer the exit polls, from whence all this "conventional wisdom" crapola emanates every time republicans lose.

Strange thing is that I rarely ever hear these kinds of things from the left when they lose...When that happens, it's that the electorate is too stupid to recognize how utterly brilliant they are and how the republicans had a better marketing model to fool the dupes who don't know what's in their own best interests.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Where and when did I assign any of the no-shows to Romney?

Re-read your posts, #19, 28, & 36. In those posts you say that the Republican ticket would have won if the no-shows had shown up. In your post #124 you say that based on the election results, it is apparent a lot of the "usefull idiots" did not turn out.

You did not SPECIFICALLY say "the no-shows would have gone to Romney", but you are clearly stating that if the no-shows had shown up, the result would have been different. If I am mistaken, I am certainly listening for where my logic may have jumped the tracks or where I may have mis-interpreted what you said in those posts

I didn't assign those no-shows to anyone.

My point is and remains that there is a far greater pool of voters to be had amongst the no-shows, than trying to appeal to the squishy moderates who answer the exit polls, from whence all this "conventional wisdom" crapola emanates every time republicans lose.

Strange thing is that I rarely ever hear these kinds of things from the left when they lose...When that happens, it's that the electorate is too stupid to recognize how utterly brilliant they are and how the republicans had a better marketing model to fool the dupes who don't know what's in their own best interests.

It's so much easier to argue with an invented personae than a real one. The invented ones don't repeatedly produce evidence to prove how wrong you are.

 

[Oddball]

This isn't my first trip to the rodeo, Skippy.

Though the faces change and the elections come and go, the stale old "conventional wisdom" narrative remains.

Republicans lose = They're not "moderate" (read: progressive/socialist) enough.

Democrats lose = People are too stupid to know what's in their own best interests (read: what progressives/socialists want).

Second verse, same as the first.

 

[nodoginnafight]

yeah, that's interesting.

Some glimmer of hope for the Republican Party is the declining influence of the Tea Party.

Consider that in the GOP primaries 60 % of Republican voters identified themselves as Tea Party Supporters. (Romeny won among this group over Rick Santorum 33% to 31%) Now a full 50% of poll respondents say the more they hear about the Tea Party, the less they like it. 27% say the more they hear about the Tea Party, the more they like it. In April of 2010 that split was 43-34 - still more negative the more they heard - but not as pronounced as today.

So the Tea Party - much to the relief of the GOP - appears to be losing steam.

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1136a6TeaParty.pdf