Yeah ... except for the libertarian aspect of it.
The change in demographics, while it disfavors Republicans, actually somewhat favors libertarians ... as evidenced by the fact Johnson drew the largest number of votes for a libertarian candidate ever. The trend is that since 2000 the Libertarian Part has steadily increased it's vote totals - significantly.
I think it will take some time for that movement to fully coalesce. Whether it ever actually does or not may depend on whether the two parties are able to work together over the next four years to actually govern and effectively address some of the real problems this nation faces.
The demographics of the nation are going in the exact opposite of the traditional Republican party. Blacks, Latinos, Asians, gays, the Republican party has gone out of it's way to alienate them.
Precisely - and any no amount of gratuitous "tokenism" (Marco Rubio, Allen West, Mia Love) as is being simplistically pushed by Bill O'Reilly will ever substitute for actually addressing their
issues ...
Which makes a good case for just flipping the channel elsewhere whenever
O'Really? comes on - he's a smug, clueless dork - one that is actually fomenting and driving stupidity within the Party.
He and many other "voices on the right" actually drive the stupidity that exists at the grassroots level (as evidenced by certain comments in this very thread) by the manner in which they cover and treat certain issues - which is then simply reflected by the Party and it's leaders.
Religious and racial bigotry, intolerance toward minorities and gays, a total lack of any empathy towards those in less fortunate circumstances - it's all right there baby.
The number one issue that voters had for voting they way they did was they wanted to vote for someone who "cared about me."
I don't think that is quite accurate - I would say it's more like "someone who actually
understands and cares about the problems I'm facing ... and is willing to do
something to actually address them" ...
It should be very clear that, on it's face, that, as a premise, would be "a bridge too far" for Romney to cross ...
One should keep this single fact in mind:
the answers to polls are largely determined by those who formulate the questions being asked ...
IOW, since the polls results are not necessarily precisely a reflection of a self-originated narrative from those being polled, the results are only as good as how accurately the phrasing of the poll question represents the actual thing that motivated the voter.
The poll results may be
generally true to some degree or another, but may also not fully reflect the sentiments completely accurately.
Of course, to some people that means free stuff, but I guarantee you it goes deeper than that.
Yeah ... it does ... way, way deeper.
Obama catered to two very different demographic segments in two very different ways, and it's why he won. He catered to the Rust Belt with concerns over unions and workers, and he catered to the Sunny Belt states with concerns over giving a voice to those who traditional have not had a much of a say, the blacks and Latinos.
On the latter, I would say it wasn't even so much a matter of catering to them, as much as it was a matter of the Republicans shooting themselves in the foot - specifically in Florida and Ohio - by attempting to suppress the minority vote, by limiting access to the polls (reduced days and hours for early voting, and in some cases less voting machines in poor urban areas)
When this sort of thing takes place on the national stage and is given widespread media coverage, it will seriously **** off those whose votes are being targeted specifically, as well as many others whose votes
might be, and it will drive voter turnout in the affected demographics nation wide.
I'd even venture to say that it might even **** off a lifelong Republican or two sufficiently enough, that they might just switch their votes and vote a straight Democratic ticket - to repudiate such conduct
Beyond that, in regards to the former, the actions against unionized workers in both Wisconsin and Ohio by Republican governors probably didn't play too well with
any union member. Clearly, in Kaisich's case it was a total over-reach, and was thoroughly repudiated by a majority of the electorate here in Ohio.
To attempt these things
before the presidential election was incredibly stupid, and just shows how delusion these ****** actully are ... they are operating in some sort of "bubble reality" ... an alternate universe ... oblivious to the larger world around them.
Despite popular belief, not all Latinos are illegals and not all illegal vote - some are actually US citizens with full voting privileges, and the Republicans threw the baby out with the bath water on that one.
You bet they did.
The Republicans don't need to become the Democrats, but if they try to go more to the right than they are already on social issues, if they make no effort to accommodate the moderate views of a rapidly changing demographic, they've got no chance at all.
They might as well engage in self-immolation:
It was clear to me that when they threw Herman Cain under the bus, they threw the towel under it right along with him.
I suspect that Mr. Cain's demise or continued participation would have had little effect on the minority vote - given his background (business exec, and right-wing talk radio host), his appeal was largely to white conservative voters - the kind that are most likely to delusionally believe that gratuitous tokenism is
the solution to the problems that the Party faces.
IOW: he's a black man that they would feel safe being seen with ...
at the country club ...
