GOP’s self-deluded optimism: Why its long-term outlook is horrible, despite ’14
Yes, Republicans are well-positioned for the midterms -- but after that, they're in a world of trouble. Here's why
SIMON MALOY
Reince Priebus is bullish. It’s been one year since the Republican National Committee chair unveiled the Growth and Opportunity Project, the RNC’s stark “autopsy” of the 2012 electoral rout, and Priebus told reporters yesterday that his party is looking at “a tsunami-type election” this November. “My belief is that it’s going to be a very big win, especially at the U.S. Senate level, and I think we may even add some seats in the congressional races,” said Reince. And to make sure there was zero chance of his being misunderstood: “It’s a disaster for Democrats.”
Priebus’ remarks received a lot of coverage, which is a little curious because they weren’t especially compelling (“BREAKING: Party Chair Sees Good Things Ahead For Party”). But they were definitely fighting words, and when you start talking to political reporters about “tsunamis” and “disasters,” you’re going to get your name in the paper.
Ultimately it doesn’t really matter what Reince Priebus calls it. The Republicans are indeed positioned to have a good 2014 election – but no thanks to Priebus’ “autopsy,” which spent the year being largely ignored by the party it was meant to reform. Which means that while their short-term outlook is strong, the long-term one is no better than it was in the wake of President Obama’s second victory.
Ask anyone at the RNC what they’ve accomplished and they’ll tell you about the outreach they’re doing, and all the tech people they’ve hired, as recommended by the Growth and Opportunity Project. “But it’s not just tone that counts,” the report declared. “Policy always matters.” So what has been done on the policy front? Nothing.
more
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/19/gops_self_deluded_optimism_why_its_long_term_outlook
= new reply since forum marked as read
voter suppression tactics: A legitimate concern but one that has possibly only ever substantively changed the outcome of one election: 2004. Beyond that, it's overstated; DoJ has done a great deal to tear down GOP suppression efforts as fast as they can dream them up. Will not be a factor in 2016...and if it were, we should/could start now to blunt it.
unverifiable electronic voting: this is really that one crazy thing that isn't in any way, shape or form a factor that people stress about to an overwhelming degree. It makes better TV than reality...reality is that it's actually easier to catch than you would think because people have a tendency to not be able to keep their mouths shut and it leaves more breadcrumbs than you would expect. Ultimately, while something we should fix for peace-of-mind about electoral outcomes...it's a real zero factor. People who mis-vote (mean to vote for a different candidate than they cast a ballot for) are a bigger threat to electoral legitimacy than electronic voting.
less high-tech shenanigans at the local level (e.g., compromised bags of votes): Interesting is that this, all the way down the list, is the most-serious realistic problem. We're pretty sure this actually has occurred. In VA this past election cycle where I was an elections observer, it was clearly attempted by campaign operatives from the Cuchinelli campaign and was thwarted by the Republican Supervisor of Elections in Fairfax County. His name is Brian W. Schoeneman and he was the target of a lot of unfounded accusations both here and elsewhere when he did his job precisely in the way he was supposed to thwart election fraud. (Disclosure: I'm biased. I wrote a letter after the election to Gov. McAuliffe voicing my strong support that Mr. Schoeneman be considered for one of the two open partisan (slated-for-the-GOP) vacancies during next year's appointment cycle on the VA elections-review board.) In WI, it happens virtually every election in the same county and though we know it and who is doing it... we have not yet managed to catch her in the act.
A relentless M$M drumbeat against Pres. Obama and against Dems: Didn't make a difference in 1996 or 2012. Do we really think this has an effect? Evidence would suggest less than ever before. Too many alternative sources of information and too few people relying on mainstream media as their sole news source.
a relentless framing of policy issues by the M$M and even the corporodem Democratic party leadership in Republican terms: Ibid. Framing is important but it's not changing elections. People vote guns, abortion and marriage equality...and all the framing in the world isn't swaying too many minds on those issues.
continual Dem leadership snottiness toward the liberal base:This has been the case since the 1970s. While it annoys me as a liberal, I don't think it has any impact or ever will unless we have a legitimate liberal alternative. It's like that Eddie Izzard skit, Cake or Death? ("What do you mean there's no cake left? So my choices are '...or death?'"
We may hate the snotty leadership but we still vote Democratic because we like reproductive choice and not stoning the gays.
What could go wrong? Less than you think?
