Losing the Races
With the 113th Congress now in session, and Barack Obama preparing to take
the oath of office a second time, the post-election analysis and
explanation of the Republican Party's 2012 setbacks continue. The
conventional wisdom is that the GOP is too conservative on social issues
- such as abortion, marriage, and the rights of religious institutions -
to win broadly. This is a gross misrepresentation of the data.
Remember all those speeches Mitt Romney gave about the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and the importance of religious freedom? Neither do I.
Mitt Romney did better than any recent Republican candidate among affluent white moderates. He actually won a majority of the white vote in both California and New York! (FYI, neither state is known for their social conservatism). He lost because he lost Asians and Hispanics, who gave in 2004 gave George W. Bush an estimated 43% and 44% of their votes, respectively. Similarly, Romney lost my home county of DuPage (IL) - traditionally a Republican stronghold - because, according to the 2010 census, it is now only 69% white. He would have had to win 70% of the white vote to carry the county.
On the other hand, as is apparent from the actual number of votes cast by different groups, Romney lost Ohio entirely because working-class whites simply didn't vote: they don't like Obama, but after being saturated in anti-Bain advertising they didn't trust Romney either.
As for the Senate... Everybody knew Todd Akin was pro-life, and yet he was still expected to win handily over Claire McCaskill - until his infamous "legitimate rape" comment. Richard Mourdock's comments were actually far more nuanced, but coming in the wake of Akin's mega-gaffe they sounded too similar. Lost in all the furor was the fact that Democrat Joe Donelly, who defeated Mourdock in the Indiana Senate race, is also pro-life. Similarly, Scott Brown lost the Senate seat in Massachusetts to Elizabeth Warren despite being pro-choice. Losing Ilinois Rep. Joe Walsh had only recently become pro-life, is one of the most loud-mouthed and least likable people in politics, and was running in a redrawn district against a war hero in a wheelchair.
As famed political scientist Larry Sabato noted, the 2012 election most resembled 2004. In terms of education, gender, age, and income, all the trends were unchanged from 8 years before; only the actual numbers were slightly shifted toward the Democrats. The one big change: Republicans total loss of minorities.
Does anyone really believe that embracing abortion and same-sex marriage will win over Latinos and Asians? And for every female voter such positions woo from the Democrats, they will turn off at least two women who already vote Republican. Despite the supposed "war on women," Romney won the votes of 56% of married women - it's single women whom he lost, and they are probably a lost cause for the GOP anyway.
The bottom line is that the GOP lost because they ran a candidate (backed by an immigration-hostile platform) who utterly failed to appeal to anyone other than non-Hispanic Whites (and possibly Cubans). From his privileged childhood, to his education, to his religion, career, and present home, Mitt Romney has spent his entire life around those who are white and mostly upper-class. He was clearly uncomfortable in any other setting. Bush, despite his privileged background, was at home with ordinary Americans. He surrounded himself with advisers such as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, and assembled what is still the most ethnically-diverse cabinet in history. With the exception of his infamous binders, no one could imagine a Romney cabinet filled with anything other than white men.
Republicans: stop listening to the advice of those who won't support you anyway, and look at the data. Stand for life and marriage - and for the dignity of all Americans, including the unborn, the unemployed, immigrants (regardless of how they got here), minorities and those trapped in dysfunctional neighborhoods. In Illinois, forget Lake Forest - you need someone who can win in Aurora. Let the Democrats have the rich white liberals. Win non-white social conservatives - particularly Hispanics - and you win the future. Ignore them, and your party fades into history.
Remember all those speeches Mitt Romney gave about the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and the importance of religious freedom? Neither do I.
Mitt Romney did better than any recent Republican candidate among affluent white moderates. He actually won a majority of the white vote in both California and New York! (FYI, neither state is known for their social conservatism). He lost because he lost Asians and Hispanics, who gave in 2004 gave George W. Bush an estimated 43% and 44% of their votes, respectively. Similarly, Romney lost my home county of DuPage (IL) - traditionally a Republican stronghold - because, according to the 2010 census, it is now only 69% white. He would have had to win 70% of the white vote to carry the county.
On the other hand, as is apparent from the actual number of votes cast by different groups, Romney lost Ohio entirely because working-class whites simply didn't vote: they don't like Obama, but after being saturated in anti-Bain advertising they didn't trust Romney either.
As for the Senate... Everybody knew Todd Akin was pro-life, and yet he was still expected to win handily over Claire McCaskill - until his infamous "legitimate rape" comment. Richard Mourdock's comments were actually far more nuanced, but coming in the wake of Akin's mega-gaffe they sounded too similar. Lost in all the furor was the fact that Democrat Joe Donelly, who defeated Mourdock in the Indiana Senate race, is also pro-life. Similarly, Scott Brown lost the Senate seat in Massachusetts to Elizabeth Warren despite being pro-choice. Losing Ilinois Rep. Joe Walsh had only recently become pro-life, is one of the most loud-mouthed and least likable people in politics, and was running in a redrawn district against a war hero in a wheelchair.
As famed political scientist Larry Sabato noted, the 2012 election most resembled 2004. In terms of education, gender, age, and income, all the trends were unchanged from 8 years before; only the actual numbers were slightly shifted toward the Democrats. The one big change: Republicans total loss of minorities.
Does anyone really believe that embracing abortion and same-sex marriage will win over Latinos and Asians? And for every female voter such positions woo from the Democrats, they will turn off at least two women who already vote Republican. Despite the supposed "war on women," Romney won the votes of 56% of married women - it's single women whom he lost, and they are probably a lost cause for the GOP anyway.
The bottom line is that the GOP lost because they ran a candidate (backed by an immigration-hostile platform) who utterly failed to appeal to anyone other than non-Hispanic Whites (and possibly Cubans). From his privileged childhood, to his education, to his religion, career, and present home, Mitt Romney has spent his entire life around those who are white and mostly upper-class. He was clearly uncomfortable in any other setting. Bush, despite his privileged background, was at home with ordinary Americans. He surrounded himself with advisers such as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, and assembled what is still the most ethnically-diverse cabinet in history. With the exception of his infamous binders, no one could imagine a Romney cabinet filled with anything other than white men.
Republicans: stop listening to the advice of those who won't support you anyway, and look at the data. Stand for life and marriage - and for the dignity of all Americans, including the unborn, the unemployed, immigrants (regardless of how they got here), minorities and those trapped in dysfunctional neighborhoods. In Illinois, forget Lake Forest - you need someone who can win in Aurora. Let the Democrats have the rich white liberals. Win non-white social conservatives - particularly Hispanics - and you win the future. Ignore them, and your party fades into history.
posted by Scott M Roney | 10:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home