Tag Archives: tea party

R.I.P., GOP: Party of old, disillusioned white people is dying a slow death

Changing Demographics will be the death knell for the Republican Party — even though it may take White House in ’16

www872

Credit: Samuel-Warde

No matter who wins the nomination battle, the Republican Party has a much bigger problem: demographics. A new report released by the Center for American Progress analyzed the demographic advantages for Democrats in 2016 and beyond and the results are overwhelmingly positive.

And this should surprise no one.

Observers on both sides have long questioned the Republican Party’s viability in an increasingly progressive and less white America. With every national election, it becomes more obvious that the GOP’s “Southern Strategy,” which exploited racial and cultural resentment for votes, has finally backfired.

As The Nation’s William Greider wrote in October: “The GOP finds itself trapped in a marriage that has not only gone bad but is coming apart in full public view. After five decades of shrewd strategy, the Republican coalition Richard Nixon put together in 1968 – welcoming the segregationist white South into the Party of Lincoln – is no devouring itself in ugly, spiteful recriminations.”

Greider was responding to the resignation of House Speaker John Boehner, who left on account of the nihilistic Tea Party caucus. The Tea Party extremists in Congress, like the social conservatives who supported them, are part of a reactionary movement of cultural discontents whose only purpose is to negate and obstruct, and they’ve proven that in office.

This movement, which has consumed the Republican Party, consists primarily of old and disillusioned white people who are rejecting a world that, in many respects, has passed them by. The nativism, the xenophobia, the social hysteria, the religious demagoguery – this is what defines the GOP now, and it stems from the party’s cynical plot to capitalize on cultural angst nearly fifty years ago.

Although it worked in the short and medium-term, the “Southern Strategy” is now the most likely cause of death for the Republican Party. Republicans still hold 31 of 50 state governorships and they control most state legislatures, but that’s not the problem. Today and moving forward, the GOP will find it harder and harder to compete for national elections.

By appealing to the fears of culturally isolated white people, the Republican Party has created an intractable demand-side problem: Gradually, their platform has become dominated by social and religious issues which alienate nearly everyone outside of their base. Given the shifting demographics in this country, this portends doom for the GOP.

From the Center for American Progress report:

“Recent social trends present significant headwinds for Republicans, particularly as they relate to demographic shifts in the country. For years, Republicans could rely on white voters—and, in particular, working-class whites—to constitute a decisive proportion of the electorate and deliver victory. This is no longer the case. As documented in the 2014 “States of Change” report—published jointly by the Center for American Progress, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Brookings Institution—the percentage of white voters in the actual electorate dropped 15 percentage points, from 89 percent in 1976 to 74 percent in 2012. The percentage of white working-class voters dropped even more, decreasing by 26 points over the same period. Future projections in the “States of Change” report suggest that the percentage of eligible white voters in the American electorate will drop to 46 percent by 2060…The decline in the white percentage of the electorate has coincided with stronger Democratic identification and voting patterns among nonwhite voters, as well as increasingly more liberal social views among higher-educated white professionals.”

The writing is on the wall, in other words. In its current form, the GOP can’t survive, not if these projections are even remotely accurate. It will become a regional party, propped up by parochialism and gerrymandered districts. None of this means the Republicans can’t win in 2016. What it does mean, however, is that they’ll have to overcome a significant demographics disadvantage, a disadvantage that will only grow over time.

For the Democrats, the landscape is far more encouraging. Virtually all of the numbers favor a Democratic candidate in 2016:

“If the Democrats receive their 2012 levels of support among these three groups in 2016—an 11-point deficit among white college graduates; a 22-point deficit among white working-class voters; and a 64-point advantage among minority voters—the party will easily win the popular vote by a 6-point margin. If support for the Democrats among minorities declines to our more conservative estimate of 78 percent, they would still win the popular vote by 4 points. If, on top of that diminished minority support, white working-class support replicates the stunning 30-point deficit congressional Democrats suffered in 2014, while support among white college-graduates remains steady, the Democratic candidate would still win the popular vote—albeit by a slender margin. If, however, white college-graduate support also replicates its relatively weak 2014 performance for the Democrats—a 16-point deficit—Republicans would win the popular vote by a single point.”

The popular vote won’t decide the election, but it’s an indication of where the country is politically. The Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential campaigns – that trend will continue and, eventually, it will translate into more and more electoral votes.

In 2016, all the Democrats need to do is hold on to the Obama coalition, and even that’s not entirely necessary. As the CAP report notes, the “sobering reality for Republicans is that the Democratic candidate will be able to absorb mild levels of defections or lower levels of turnout from its core voters in the general election and still capture an Electoral College majority.” Because of its over-reliance on white male voters, however, the GOP can’t win a national election unless turnout is historically low for the Democrats. And they still have to appeal to a cross-section non-ideological working-class voters. But the anger and the bitterness pulsating through their base at the moment will surely turn moderates and independents off, and the GOP can’t afford that.

Whatever happens next year, it’s clear that the GOP is slowly pandering its way into oblivion. The country has changed demographically, culturally, and politically – and the Democrats have changed with it. The Republican Party has not. And if Donald Trump’s present success is any indication, it’s headed in the wrong direction.

 

Written by  via SALON

Poll: 30 Percent of Republican Voters Favor Bombing any Arab-sounding country, even fictional nation from ‘Aladdin’

SMH.

Is this a joke? This has to be the same demographic of voters who also believe Donald Trump’s outlandish claims of having seen “thousands of Muslims cheering” in New Jersey on anniversary of 9/11.

DKathleen Hastings, Elizabeth Musngi

(Credit: AP / John Amis)

According to a new Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll, 30 percent of Republican primary voters nationally support bombing Agrabah, the made up home of Disney’s Aladdin, and 34 percent support Donald Trump for president.

Of course, Trump leads the crowded pack of GOP presidential wannabes overall with a whopping 34 percent support nationally. His nearest rival, Ted Cruz, stands at 18 percent. Of those Republicans who would like to bomb the fictional land of Aladdin, support for Trump is at 45 percent. To their credit, 57 percent of Republicans at least responded that they weren’t sure if the U.S. should bomb the Arab sounding land while 13 percent opposed a bombing campaign in the Disney created nation.

Surprisingly, self-identified Tea Party members only accounted for 16 percent of respondents of the survey conducted over two days this week while half of all respondents identified as Evangelical Christians.

More than a quarter indicated that they would like to outright ban the religion of Islam from being practiced in the U.S. That number jumped to 42 percent of Trump supporters who think Islam should be illegal. Another 46 percent of Republican voters support a national Muslim registry although for 47 percent, shutting down all mosques is a bridge too far.

54 percent of all Republican primary voters support Trump’s call to ban all Muslims from entering the United States, while 36 percent believe Trump’s claims that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey were cheering from the rooftops on 9/11.

The full poll, which features a stunning Ben Carson drop to 6 percent support nationally, illustrates just how extreme the base of the Republican party has gotten. The only area in which the Republican presidential candidates appear to be more extreme than their base is, unsurprisingly, on a specific gun control issue. 80 percent of Republican primary voters support banning individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms. The Republican party, however, has staunchly opposed the effort at the directive of the NRA.

Somehow I am not surprised, whatsoever.

Debate Shows G.O.P. Race’s Volatility as Ted Cruz Holds Steady

By MATT FLEGENHEIMER & JONATHAN MARTIN – NYTimes

[Ashley Parker contributed reporting from New York.]

Senator Ted Cruz emerged from Tuesday night’s Republican debate later largely unscathed, weathering attacks from Senator Marco Rubio, avoiding them from Donald J. Trump and giving little reason to doubt that his rise among Tea Party and evangelical voters will continue.

The Texas senator’s steady performance in the debate seemed likely to solidify his ascendant standing in Iowa, where he has surpassed Mr. Trump in some recent polls.

While the candidates pressed their cases in interviews on Wednesday and prepared to set off on the last stretch of campaigning before a likely holiday lull, the debate seemed to confirm the volatility of the race in New Hampshire and beyond, adding little clarity as to which man or woman might emerge as the favorite among center-right Republicans.

Mr. Trump, who leads in national polls, slogged through an uneven night, though forgettable debate performances have in the past had little effect on his support. Perhaps most notably, Mr. Trump resisted repeating past criticisms of Mr. Cruz during the debate and in interviews afterward. For days before the debate, Mr. Trump had assailed Mr. Cruz, who questioned the billionaire’s judgment at a private fund-raiser last week but who has remained publicly deferential. Yet Mr. Trump cast aside any strategic imperative to halt Mr. Cruz’s momentum in Iowa, continuing his habit of holding fire on somebody unwilling to attack him first onstage.

17repubsweb1-articlelarge
Donald J. Trump, center, repeating past criticisms of Ted Cruz, right, during the debate and in interviews afterward. (Credit: Ruth Fremson / The New York Times)

“I just think he didn’t say anything that I particularly disagreed with,” Mr. Trump told CNN after the debate.

After facing two forces to which he is unaccustomed — an often unsympathetic crowd and an effectively pugnacious Jeb Bush — Mr. Trump planned on Wednesday to return to his campaign comfort zone with a midday rally in Mesa, Ariz.

Mr. Bush, meanwhile, appeared energized, beating rivals to the cable airwaves from Las Vegas in a slew of interviews around 4 a.m. Pacific time.

After appearing to irritate Mr. Trump in a series of exchanges during the debate, a triumph that bordered on catharsis for many supporters of his long-languishing campaign, Mr. Bush and his team moved quickly to convince donors that he was seizing the momentum from his pointed attacks on the developer.

“I don’t think he’s a serious candidate — I don’t know why others don’t feel compelled to point that out, but I did,” Mr. Bush said Wednesday on CNN, adding, “Donald Trump is not going to be president of the United States by insulting every group on the planet, insulting women, P.O.W.s, war heroes, Hispanics, disabled, African-Americans.”

Mr. Bush’s performance on Tuesday was particularly sweet for a campaign whose candidate had flubbed a memorable confrontation with Mr. Rubio in a previous debate.

“We know debates do matter,” Sally Bradshaw, one of Mr. Bush’s top advisers, told donors on a conference call immediately after the debate. “We have seen the downside of that. I think we can celebrate tonight that we’ll see the upside of that.”

Mr. Bush, who was scheduled to hold a private gathering with supporters in Nevada on Wednesday, now finds himself tussling on two fronts in New Hampshire, a state increasingly viewed as decisive for his fortunes: In addition to Mr. Trump, Mr. Bush must contend with establishment favorites like Mr. Rubio and Gov. Chris Christie, who had another strong showing on Tuesday and who has been rising in polls in the state, which holds the nation’s first primary, on Feb. 9.

There is also Gov. John Kasich, whose “super PAC” was to begin running ads in New Hampshire on Wednesday criticizing Mr. Christie’s fiscal record. It is at once an acknowledgment of Mr. Christie’s renewed strength there and a signal of that state primary’s present chaos.

“For the jumbled-up establishment lane, it’s now even more congested,” said Matt Strawn, a former Iowa Republican chairman. “And Cruz’s lane is totally clear.”

Mr. Rubio, coming off another broadly well-received debate performance, plans to appear on Wednesday at rallies in both Iowa and New Hampshire. For the second consecutive debate, the focus afterward centered in large measure on Mr. Rubio and the party’s approach to immigration policy.

Mr. Cruz, who has since the last debate repeatedly highlighted Mr. Rubio’s past support for bipartisan immigration reform that included a pathway to citizenship, sought in television interviews to tie the Florida senator’s position to recent terror threats.

17repubsweb3-articlelarge

Jeb Bush with his wife, Columba, after the debate. (Credit: Ruth Fremson / The New York Times)

“This is one of the first times we really discussed how the Rubio-Schumer amnesty plan would have endangered our national security,” Mr. Cruz said on Fox News, referring to Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat. (Mr. Rubio, appearing Wednesday on Fox News, also invoked the liberal senator while criticizing Mr. Cruz’s support for limits on surveillance programs, saying Mr. Cruz had “aligned himself with Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer and the A.C.L.U. and every other liberal group in America.”)

Mr. Cruz told CNN that the confrontations with Mr. Rubio were unsurprising because “Senator Rubio’s campaign has been running attack ads against me, and I think they’re concerned” at the prospect of conservatives’ uniting around Mr. Cruz.

But Mr. Rubio’s campaign has reveled since the debate in what it saw as a mealy-mouthed response from Mr. Cruz to a question about whether he could support legal status for people in the country illegally.

“I have never supported legalization,” Mr. Cruz said, countering a claim from Mr. Rubio, “and I do not intend to support legalization.”

Mr. Rubio’s communications director, Alex Conant, said on Twitter, “After this debate, I don’t intend to celebrate too much.”

Michael Meyers, a veteran Republican strategist, said that Mr. Rubio “proved he could handle some punches” on a night when Mr. Cruz and Senator Rand Paul often teamed up to knock him. But Mr. Rubio, Mr. Meyers added, “didn’t prove he could really sting Cruz.”

The Cruz-Rubio dynamic appears to be growing more confrontational beyond the debate stage, as well. Republicans in Iowa this week received their first piece of mail from Mr. Rubio’s super PAC criticizing Mr. Cruz for his vote to limit the National Security Agency’s metadata program. (Mr. Cruz has said an alternative program had, in fact, strengthened the country’s ability to fight terrorism.)

“These men undermined our intelligence agencies’ ability to stop terrorist attacks,” the mailer reads, below a photo of Mr. Cruz, Mr. Paul, President Obama and Senator Harry Reid.

Yet in a sign of how reluctant the candidates and their allies are to imperil their own prospects by going aggressively negative, the literature points to the efforts of Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, not Mr. Rubio, to protect robust surveillance laws.

For others, the debate — the last major scheduled event for Republican candidates this year — prompted fresh questions about the viability of their campaigns.

Carly Fiorina, appearing Wednesday on CNN, chafed at a remark about her struggles in the polls. “Oh wow, you’re like declaring an end to my candidacy,” she said. “I think we’re just getting started.”

Minutes later, Senator Lindsey Graham, who was considered a standout by many in the so-called undercard debate of lower-polling candidates, made a pitch to viewers after a questioner noted that he was funny.

“I am hilarious — send money, if you want to keep me in this race,” he said, adding, “I’m not speaking again until somebody sends $100,000.”