"Abortion Restriction is Still a Winning Issue" (discusses "Ron Paul Youth")

[Brian4Liberty]

I am going to continue linking to this until people start reading it: http://www.jamesjheaney.com/2012/11/09/why-we-lost-not-enough-votes/

Speculation and hypothesis. Based on that article, running Pat Buchanan is a guaranteed winner.

 

[spladle]

Just to add to this. Being seen as the party of greedy rich people didn't help either. Especially with minorities but with working class whites as well.

+1

Required reading for anyone with an interest in electoral politics, imo: http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/

 

[cheapseats]

I am going to continue linking to this until people start reading it: http://www.jamesjheaney.com/2012/11/09/why-we-lost-not-enough-votes/

From the article/theory:

"...If Trende and I are right about the “missing whites,” then Romney could have won this election — handily — without a single additional Hispanic voter. All he had to do was get the 2004 Bush base to the polls."

"...It turns out that, even if Romney had matched Bush’s 2004 performance among female voters, Romney still would have lost the popular vote and the election. It would have been closer, but gender itself was not a determinative factor.

Much more interesting than that is the breakdown by race. When we change the racial composition back to the composition of 2004, but leave all else the same, we find that the growing gender gap is not a result of women leaving the Republican party. It is the result of non-whites in general, and non-white women especially, becoming more prolific and more monolithic liberal voters. This racial demographic change is surfacing in the gender statistics and makes a modest women problem look like a very big one..."

Therefore, throw women under the bus and dangle the AMNESTY carrot in front of Illegal Immigrants...who will proceed to vote for Democrats & Benefits?

No one is saying anything new at this point, so I guess "we'll see" whether anti-abortion rhetoric swells or shrinks the 'R' base.

 

[spladle]

Speculation and hypothesis.

I prefer the term "data-driven analysis," but rather than quibble over labels I'd ask, "Do you know what those words mean?" If you have a non-anecdotal argument for why abortion restriction is not a winning issue, I'd love to hear it. If I'm wrong, I want to know. Do you feel the same way?

Based on that article, running Pat Buchanan is a guaranteed winner.

How do you figure? I did a ctrl-f search of the article and couldn't find a single mention of Pat Buchanan.

 

[spladle]

Therefore, throw women under the bus and pander to Illegal Immigrants?

No one is saying anything new at this point, so I guess "we'll see" whether anti-abortion rhetoric swells or shrinks the 'R' base.

Yeah, I just checked your post history and realized I've been wasting my time treating you like a human being. Apologies to the actual people reading this thread who have been fooled by my decision to engage this animal into thinking it is a person. I promise not to make that mistake again.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

How do you figure? I did a ctrl-f search of the article and couldn't find a single mention of Pat Buchanan.

Pat Buchanan is well known for an anti-abortion stance. If that is all it takes to win, he should be a shoe-in.

 

[eating_nachos]

Pat Buchanan is well known for an anti-abortion stance. If that is all it takes to win, he should be a shoe-in.

Pat didn't win for the same reason Ron didn't. He's just a little too honest.

 

[spladle]

Pat Buchanan is well known for an anti-abortion stance. If that is all it takes to win, he should be a shoe-in.

Whom do you believe has argued that "all it takes to win" is "an anti-abortion stance"?

 

[cheapseats]

Election 2012 Results: Republicans Lost Because of the Ultra Right Wing Agenda:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...s-lost-because-of-the-ultra-right-wing-agenda

"... The American Enterprise Institute tallied final demographic results and the conclusions to be drawn are pretty obvious.

In a nutshell, Republicans committed political suicide by allowing a minority of right wing ideologues to dominate the stage. Their rhetoric completely turned off a huge swath of the nation against the party enabling the president to achieve a significant electoral victory...

Republicans Learn the Cost of Alienating Women Voters:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...earn-the-cost-of-alienating-women-voters.html

"...A larger-than-usual gender gap, 18 points, is a central factor in returning President Obama to the White House for a second term. The skepticism among women about Mitt Romney dates back to the Republican primaries, when the former governor, eager to court social conservatives, said he supported a “personhood” amendment that would confer full legal rights on a fertilized egg and potentially criminalize some forms of contraception, and that if elected president he would “get rid of” Planned Parenthood.

Romney’s attack on the venerable Planned Parenthood turned out to be a gold mine for Democrats.

...What struck women as a GOP obsession with contraception began during the primaries when Rick Santorum, who is Catholic and the father of seven children, introduced the idea of a state ban on contraceptives. Asked if he would support such a ban, Romney replied that he supported contraception, adding, “It’s working just fine.”

It was a rare instance when Romney didn’t adopt the most extreme position of his party.

...Romney had a much greater numbers and attitudes challenge than the relative handful of disaffected Clinton voters posed for Obama. “There is an element of the Republican Party that is significantly out of the mainstream,” says the GOP strategist, “and they’re loud, and whether they’re talking about abortion or building a wall on our southern border, they don’t sound like someone you want running the country.”

...Republicans have lost four of the last six presidential elections, five if you count losing the popular vote in 2000, so there should be plenty of soul searching...

White Elephants: Are Republicans an Endangered Species?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/white-elephants-are-republicans-an-endangered-species/

"...the party will continue to thrive in many states, where residential polarization and gerrymandering give it a built-in advantage.

But it’s tough to see how Republicans can remain a national force so long as their their support is limited to a shrinking cohort. On this point, centrist historians and Pat Buchanan agree. David Brooks, ever the optimist, recently suggested the foundation of a “second G.O.P.” based in the coastal cities, as if two parties with limited, mutually hostile constituencies would fare better than one. They shoot elephants, don’t they?

US election: Tories turned off by 'extreme' Republican party
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-turned-off-by-extreme-Republican-party.html

"...The Tory party is mounting a fence-mending mission to the Republican convention after a senior MP admitted that their American sister-party's "extreme" positions on abortion, health care and religion had alienated many Conservatives..."

Former New Jersey REPUBLICAN Governor Christine Todd Whitman was on the Daily Rundown this morning:

"In Washington to attend a green energy event, former New Jersey Republican Governor Christine Todd Whitman talked about her party's effort to re-brand itself, and told guest host Chris Cillizza on MSNBC's The Daily Rundown that simply adding more female candidate and surrogates will do little to help the party.

"It's not about the messaging, it's the message," Whitman said. "You can't just say, 'we've got to say it better.' When you vote against the Violence Against Women Act, that raises some serious concerns among women."

"When you start imposing as good "conservatives" government in the bedroom, that also turns people off," Whitman said of the party's efforts to legislate women's reproductive rights..."

http://thecontributor.com/civil-rig...g-efforts-its-not-about-messaging-its-message

 

[sailingaway]

cheapseats, do you literally know a single actual human woman who could care less about the vote on the violence against women act, rather just using its name to demonize people? Because I don't. Consultants are paid to sound like they know something, but as far as i am concerned, they don't have their finger on the pulse of any but each other.

They WANT a result and pretend achieving it is popular.

 

[cheapseats]

cheapseats, do you literally know a single actual human woman who could care less about the vote on the violence against women act,

No, I do not "literally know" a single actual "human woman" who could "CARE LESS" about the Violence Against Women Act. No doubt I have CROSSED PATHS with women who could "care less"...particularly if you are signaling that YOU are one.

as far as i am concerned, they don't have their finger on the pulse of any but each other.

They WANT a result and pretend achieving it is popular.

In other words, you think they preach to their own choir within their own bubble?

There's a lotta that goin' around.

 

[sailingaway]

No, I do not "literally know" a single actual "human woman" who could "CARE LESS" about the Violence Against Women Act. No doubt I have CROSSED PATHS with women who could "care less"...particularly if you are signaling that YOU are one.

no I don't care except that it was unconstitutional, and I care about that. I know the names have nothing to do with the reality. And I think it is slung as name calling not out of true concern.

In other words, you think they preach to their own choir within their own bubble?

There's a lotta that goin' around.

yes, I think they are manipulative, self agrandizing and in a bubble, and that is why I don't give much credence to what you were quoting.