The leadership of the Republican party are entering into deep anger and denial as a way of coping with their massive loss yesterday.
A Republican official in Washington spoke for many defiant colleagues by predicting that the party would not need to change because Mr Obama would drive the Democrats to disaster in a second term.
“He’ll damage the Democrat party brand so badly with $16 trillion in national debt, and the bad economy, that his successor won’t be able to win,” the official told The Daily Telegraph.
The Republican also boasted that the party’s roster of potential presidential candidates in 2016 was superior to that of the Democrats, who may be forced to turn to party veterans.
“There’s no way Hillary Clinton can run and win after Benghazi. Joe Biden isn’t taken seriously,” the official said. “There’s no one on their bench – at least for another six to eight years. We have Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal – and Jeb Bush”.
we are witnessing the final establishment of the long-feared dependency majority, where half the country is not paying federal income taxes and are on the receiving end of government largess and, expect “they” to pay their fair share to pay for it.
… We have never quite had the present perfect storm of nearly half not paying federal income taxes, nearly 50 million on food stamps, and almost half the population on some sort of federal largess — and a sophistic elite that promotes it and at the same time finds ways to be exempt from its social and cultural consequences. For an Obama, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, or a Feinstein, the psychological cost for living like 18th-century French royalty is the promotion of the welfare state for millions of others that live, and for now will be kept far away, in places like Bakersfield or Mendota.
The solution, I fear, may be near-insolvency along the Wisconsin model, and self-correction after some dark Greek-like years, or, in contrast, in extremis blue politicians having to deal with the consequences of their own policies.
It remains to be seen whether they can pass on to acceptance in time. Acceptance that the GOP dug its own grave.
Yes, Obama won with a coalition of voters from various demographic groups (not especially odd for a Democrat, although more dramatic than the recent past, perhaps).
But no, because there is nothing inherent about being black, latino, or female that means that one is destined to vote Democratic,
It is about policy.
Take latinos: it should be a shock to no one that Romney had a difficult time with this demographic. One talk about whatever one likes, but the bottom line is that the Republican Party has been working overtime to inform latinos that they are not part of the Republican coalition and, in fact, might not even be real Americans. What else do we all think that the message is when Republican-controlled Arizona passes an immigration law that has the practical effect of making any darker-hued individual feel like they might be asked for their papers? Or when Republican-controlled Alabama passes an even tougher law that requires the gathering of data on the immigration status of school children.
Forget for a moment border issues and one’s views on immigration and just take those two very real, and very simple examples and try a little shoe on the other foot thinking. If one is white one is not concerned in the least about these issues. If one is of Latin American desecent, evne if one’s family has been in the United States before there was a United States, one is going to feel targeted.
…demography is not the driver. Policy is the driver.
When I hear Republicans lament that they can’t get the latino vote as if there was some magical connection between having Mexican ancestors and voting for Democrats, I want to bang my head against the wall. When your party effectively demonizes a demographic, that demographic is likely to vote en masse for the other party.
Heck, why did the Republican Party once have the African-American vote and why did they lose it? Policy.
Why is this so hard to understand?