Ed Gillespie and the Republican Party in Virginia are so bent on using racism as a political weapon that they’re campaigning against sanctuary cities even though Virginia doesn’t have any sanctuary cities. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg when you consider the other things they’re doing, including the mailers they’re sending out and the advertisements they’re producing even in downticket races.
I want to go back again to July 2nd, 2013. That’s the day I wrote a piece called The GOP is Moving in the Wrong Direction. It was in response to an article Benjy Sarlin had written for MSNBC in which he detailed the transformation that occurred in Republican circles as they moved from following the RNC post-2012 autopsy report’s analysis (that insisted on the political necessity of passing immigration reform) to following the analysis of Real Clear Politics’ Sean Trende (who argued that the GOP could win by opposing immigration reform and getting better turnout and a greater share of the white vote).
What Mr. Sarlin doesn’t broach is the subject of how conservatives might be able to grab a higher percentage of whites and how they might go about driving up white turnout. The most obvious way is to pursue an us vs. them approach that alternatively praises whites as the true, patriotic Americans, and that demonizes non-whites as a drain on the nation’s resources. This is basically the exact strategy pursued by McCain and especially Romney. It’s what Palin was all about, and it’s what that 47% speech was all about.
An added element was introduced by Barack Obama, whose controversial pastor and Kenyan ancestry opened up avenues for both veiled and nakedly racist appeals to the white voter. A white Democratic nominee would be less of an easy target for talk about secret Islamic sympathies and fraudulent birth certificates, but that would only make other racially polarizing arguments more necessary.
The problem is that these attacks have already been made, and they failed in even near-optimal circumstances. Accusing the Democrats of socialism, which is a race-neutral way of accusing the party of being beholden to the racial underclasses, has been proven insufficient. The only hope for a racial-polarization strategy is to get the races to segregate their votes much more thoroughly, and that requires that more and more whites come to conclude that the Democratic Party is the party for blacks, Asians, and Latinos.
That is, indeed, how the party is perceived in the Deep South, but it would be criminal to expand those racial attitudes to the country at large.
The Republicans are coalescing around a strategy that will, by necessity, be more overtly racist than anything we’ve seen since segregation was outlawed.
The way I look at this is that it wasn’t inevitable. The main reason to take the racist approach was to protect movement conservatism’s rank in the Republican coalition. The party could have moved away from movement conservatism and gone looking for votes from immigrant communities, but it would have had to adapt on more than just racial issues to have success.
Once they determined that they would oppose comprehensive immigration reform, the way was pretty much blocked for them to do anything other than pursue Sean Trende’s formula.
Was it an accident that Donald Trump emerged with a plan to do precisely that?
I have no idea how much foresight and planning went into Trump’s idea for his campaign before he launched it. Most of the time, I’m not inclined to attribute planning to him at all. Maybe he just had a feel for the zeitgeist of the Republican Party and the nation.
Back in 2013, I thought this kind of campaign would be “criminal” but I didn’t discount it working. It has worked. It continues to work, and the Democrats’ advantage in the Virginia gubernatorial race is narrowing to a dead heat.
The Republicans are doing this because they’re driven by movement conservatives who believe it’s the only way they can win in a country that is growing more diverse. The Democrats are grappling with how to adjust as a party to their collapse of support in small towns and rural America, so I know parties can struggle to change to meet new challenges. But the GOP is using racism to protect conservative ideology. They know that immigrant communities don’t share their values on a host of issues related to how the government should function, and they want to avoid having to ask for their votes for as long as possible.
Racial animosity has always played a big part of movement conservatism and in the Christian Coalition, but the need to keep polarizing whites against everyone else is making it more central and more transparent than ever before. It’s actually making people more racist both by design and by osmosis.
For the Republican Party to break out of this transformation into a fascist party, they need a rump to emerge with a lot of financial backing that is opposed to movement conservatism and that refuses to cede the party to them. We’ve seen pushback when the business community intervened to stop antigay measures pushed in North Carolina and Mike Pence’s Indiana. I know it is possible for traditional Republicans to organize, finance and push back against the extremists in their midst. But when a guy like Ed Gillespie is using racism like this in the Virginia governor’s race, it’s obvious that this process has not yet begun.
” I know it is possible for traditional Republicans to organize, finance and push back against the extremists in their midst”
No – it isn’t.
There are really two questions here:
Interestingly the widely cited Voter Study Group poll contains a number of potential trial heats.
Here are the results of a couple:
Rubio 47.1, Clinton 44.5
Clinton 47, Cruz 43.21
The poll is off: it has Clinton winning by 1 (she won by about 2.1). Still, it suggests a less obviously racist candidate would have run about 3.6 points better against Clinton than Trump did.
This would have been enough to flip Maine, Minnesota, Nevada and New Hampshire.
So lets look at the data by race.
Rubio runs about 10 points better among Hispanics than Trump does. But he also runs ahead of Trump among Whites.
So in 2016 there probably WAS a way to take a less obviously hardline on immigration and race and not lose ground among whites.
Much, indeed most of the 2016 analysis, has suggested that Trump did something other Republicans could not. The data doesn’t support that – in fact is suggests Trump was indeed about as bad a candidate as the GOP could have run.
So the question becomes whether a more appealing candidate like Rubio could have emerged from the primaries. I tend to doubt that. It was Cruz and not Rubio who was the main obstacle to Trump. And as we have seen, Cruz actually runs worse than Trump against Clinton.
Summary: The GOP did not maximize its potential vote total because it relied too heavily on racial themes.
Disagree but have no numbers to argue with.
Then why do you believe it?
Rubio and kasich ran well ahead of Trump in trial heats against Clinton for as long as they polled the trial heats.
Trump ran behind Romney.
No other GOP candidate would have gotten the share of the white vote that Trump captured. Each State which Trump won by less than a percentage point suppressed the non-white vote in various ways, and someone engaged in large-scale social media lies with bots and other unusual methods of support in order to suppress the potential vote for Democrats further. And the propagandistic misuse of information stolen from the DNC and Podesta servers was unprecedented.
This set of circumstances would not have taken place with any other Republican Presidential candidate.
It is interesting how, based on your readings of compendious polling before the election, you went from someone who was expressing a decent amount of confidence that Hillary’s campaign would win to refusing to abide any explanation for the national 2016 result outside your view that Clinton was a uniquely bad candidate who ran a uniquely bad campaign.
How this explains the electoral loss of, for one of many examples, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin is a mystery.
The problem with this attitude is that, if everyone in our movement were to take it up, it would undermine the Congressional investigations underway, and similar methods to those used in 2016 would be used to undermine your preferred liberal candidates in prominent upcoming elections, whoever they are.
Do you ever produce any data at all? For anything?
You say this: “No other GOP candidate would have gotten the share of the white vote that Trump captured.”
This is plain flat wrong. Period.
There is significant evidence to the contrary.
Rubio led Clinton in December of 2015. And in June of 2016.
Before anyone had heard of Russia.
You retreat, as Clinton people do, by saying RUSSIA!
I literally haven’t said Russia at all in the last comments here.
I say no other GOP candidate would have gotten the percentage of the white vote Trump gained because no other modern GOP POTUS candidate has ever gained the percentage of the white vote Trump gained, and because no other GOP candidate, including Cruz and Rubio, would have run such an extreme and intentional campaign to polarize white American voters against other Americans, whether thru direct campaign rhetoric on the stump and thru TV screens or with shadowy propagandistic campaign activity in social media which is very suspect and certainly unprecedented.
You claim here that polls of theoretical general election matchups between Clinton and other GOP candidates more than a year in advance of the election provide meaningful “data” for your case. This claim wishes us to ignore that Trump polled well behind Clinton in both the overall national vote and in Electoral College summaries less than a month before the election in a matchup between the two actual, not theoretical viable general election POTUS candidates.
The 2016 POTUS campaign would have been run under substantially different conditions if anyone else other than Trump had been the Republican candidate. If you wish to dispute this claim, continue to knock yourself out. However, the data you’re presenting doesn’t make the case you claim for it.
All of the data say you are wrong.
ALL of it.
I mean all of it. What is interesting in how invested you are in it.
Apparently you were asleep in 2014. White America was already polarized.
This was reflected in the polling over a year in advance of the election.
I challenge you: find a single fucking data point to show Rubio running behind Trump before the nomination among whites.
Booman’s point is the GOP chose polarization, and it wasn’t their best strategy.
I know you are to dense to understand this, but that is what the voter study group says as well.
And, for flying fuck’s sake, YOU were “a Clinton person” during the general election. And you, like me, were “a Bernie person” during the primary election. You predicted, cautiously but consistently, a Clinton win in the weeks and days before Election Day.
We have a terrific need to move forward, and casting all political disputes thru a Hillary/Bernie frame is unhelpful. In fact, I see it as increasingly destructive to our shared goals.
WHY DID WE LOSE?
I think winning means actually understanding why the Party has less power than at any time in 70 years.
You treat asking such questions as a personal attack on you.
You should ask yourself why you find that question so threatening.
I’m highly interested in discovering why the 2016 election turned out as it did in the several States.
I think your answers to this question are far too reductive, poorly supported by the data you share here, and are substantially based on personal animus. I think your answers keep the progressive movement and Democratic Party highly vulnerable to continued future attacks which will suppress our turnout and prevent us from gaining more voters for our favorite candidates and policies.
Your proposal here is flawed. It presumes that all other campaign circumstances would have been the same if Cruz or Rubio had been the candidate.
I hope it can be conceded that only Trump could have gained the variety of extremely peculiar forms of support he gained to win a razor-thin win by winning four crucial Electoral College states by less than a percentage point.
You’re also relying on polls which considered theoretical general election matchups to deliver your claim, while in other posts you warn against being too in thrall to polls which dealt on a week-by-week basis with the real general election matchup.
“I hope it can be conceded that only Trump could have gained the variety of extremely peculiar forms of support he gained to win a razor-thin win by winning four crucial Electoral College states by less than a percentage point.”
Nonsense. You may want to believe this tripe – but absent data it is just your defensiveness over the disastrous campaign that was run.
Trump was an awful candidate who consistently ran behind the GOP candidates in Senate races (Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina). He ran over a point behind Romney.
Trump was an historically terrible candidate.
The point is that the GOP had other, better candidates and campaigns. These options were not pursued because of the rabid and insane nature of their base.
It’s not clear that these two claims are saying anything significantly different:
Not really seeing any conflict between the two. “The insane nature of their base” is what made Trump’s anti-democratic, razor-thin, against-the-odds “win” possible. Where’s the data indicating any of his GOP opponents could/would have turned that trick?
Sigh.
The evidence is in the polling data I cited. And in the polling in 2016 showing Kasich and Rubio running well ahead of Trump.
I get it – you don’t care what the data says.
Didn’t matter if Kasich or Rubio polled ahead of Trump. They couldn’t get nominated “because of the rabid and insane nature of [the GOP] base.” You said it yourself (and got that one right).
It does when we run elections at the State level against candidates who are not Trump.
It suggests candidates who put distance between themselves and Trump may benefit.
Its never going to begin until they stop winning but they wont stop winning.
It doesn’t help that Virginia Democrats didn’t nominate Perriello, who I believe was a substantially stronger candidate.
Perriello was certainly the more progressive candidate and directly appealed to Booman’s lost Democratic constituency, the WWC, but Northam has broader appeal as a veteran and a doctor with a strongly positive record. Gillespie is a sleazy DC GOP operative and lobbyist and. I will be really surprised and disappointed if he makes it. But, it will obviously be really important for Democrats to GOTV. As far as I know, Corey Stewart has not yet embraced Gillespie (Stewart is a Trumper.)
Northam had the entire Democratic Party of Virginia behind him. But after the primary was over, poof. All the enthusiasm died. I’m hoping he wins by 2-3, and that’s pathetic in this environment in a state Clinton won by 5.
That would be about what you would expect.
Clinton won by 5 in a general election. Given the predicable falloff in some of the Democratic vote you would predict about a 2.5 point win.
The average is about 3.5 in the polling average.
Meanwhile For has ALA Senate tied. None of the other polls do, but it would be a shock if we keep the loss to single digits.
Perriello was certainly the more progressive candidate and directly appealed to Booman’s lost Democratic constituency, the WWC, but Northam has broader appeal as a veteran and a doctor with a strongly positive record.
What is Northam’s strongly positive record? Have you seen any commercials he’s run so far? Puke!! They don’t exactly drive turn out.
As long as they’re winning they won’t stop, but the GOP runs on race, comfortably and without shame, because many elements of it are racist. As long as whites are in the majority, I don’t see them ever abandoning race.
My presumption is that this will get hotter as whites see their majority slipping away. When they’re a minority, it’ll turn incandescent. ‘Whites’ are increasingly an ethnic group (not everyone with pink skin is a member) and increasingly voting that way. See ‘the Southification of the North.’
This isn’t a political argument, it’s an ethnic conflict.
Agree 100%. And there is a tribal aspect to their white ethnocentrism, if you will, evidenced by the fact that they willingly believe and knowingly adhere to obvious falsehoods (“Obama raised our taxes!”) that fit their ethnic (racist, bigoted) viewpoint on things like taxes, guns, healthcare, the economy, environment etc, when the idea has been planted that it would help “those people.”
And this explains why they routinely vote against what reasonably would be their own interests when they believe or are led to believe that some undeserving dark person might benefit as well, i.e. “I don’t want my tax dollars going to pay for someone else’s healthcare.” Or viewing any government assistance they themselves partake of negatively as an undeserved “handout” when that assistance is going to someone not of the tribe.
I recall in one of the eleventy-billion articles on what drives Trump supporters, a woman whose husband was able to stay alive because thanks to the ACA they only had to pay a few dollars a month for a medicine that would have cost $6,000 a month were it not for the ACA said that she agrees with the Trump/GOP position that the law should be abolished. When reminded that if the ACA abolished it would be tantamount to a death sentence for her husband since they wouldn’t be able to afford the medicine, didn’t matter. That’s the power of these tribal shibboleths they hold dear, and that the GOP uses to great effect in manipulating them.
Well, I’m sort of more … not ‘sympathetic,’ exactly, but maybe ‘understanding?’ Not of the horror-show content of this ethnicity, which is a roiling mass of paranoia, racism/misogyny/antisemitism/homophobia, etc, but ethnicities adhere to non-factual narratives all the time. Believing in god is probably the most obvious thing. And they all, far as I know, emphasize a heavy distinction between the in-group and the out-group. If they don’t, they don’t last long as an ethnicity. And I believe it’s common for ethnic groups to vote against their economic (or other) interests in support of their ethnic interests.
So I’m not sure any of that is unusual in terms of its structure, sorta. I mean, that’s stuff that ethnicities do. The problem is the toxic content of this particular ethnicity, and the combination of feeling utterly victimized and vulnerable while in fact wielding the majority of the power. We’ve seen what happens when a powerful majority facing changing power dynamics acts as if they’re an embattled minority facing an existential threat.
I’m not arguing the extent to which any of this craziness is typical/unusual or not, or whether its an expected attribute ethnicity/tribalism. It is. My hat’s off in recognition of the evil genius of the GOP, that they are able to take advantage of it so effectively. I don’t think most of them realize the extent they’re being played.
The GOP also keeps winning because it appears to me that the majority of the 1% both own the M$M, which trends very rightward/pro-GOP, and donate the biggest amount to the GOP.
I don’t think we can ignore the power of the propagandizing and brainwashing – all very deliberate (aka Southern Strategy) – that happens via the media. There is simply nothing remotely similar to Fox and Hate Radio (esp Rush) on the left. Not even close. It’s specious to point at the very few leftish shows on MSNBC, which are only fairly recent, and somehow equate that to decades of Fox & Rush, plus “Christian” broadcasting/churches.
As long as the super wealthy have a stranglehold on our nation like they do today, I don’t see the GOP losing power anytime soon. It’s clear that the GOP can say or do almost anything, and their brainwashed minions will happily go along with it on the braindead notion that it pisses off Libtards. That seems to be the main thing that matters anymore to GOP voters.
Well, the donald called a KIA widow and told her “he knew what he signed up for”. I think the GOP just lost the military vote. How many are in VA? The man is a moron.
I’m just going to throw this out there. I lived in Roanoke in the late 80s and early 90s. We even had a few democratic neighbors. I never heard any racism until one day at a little league game. They had a nice park there and our kids played little league there.
The park had nice tennis courts and two baseball fields and picnic grounds. But there were no basketball courts. I was standing there one night and ask a fella how come. Some other guy heard me and came over to tell me (kinda under his breath) “well you know why that is? we want to keep the N***s out of here.” So while the folks don’t always talk about it, it is there. A democrat can win in Roanoke except if race gets mixed up in it.
Things like this get said under the breath to others who may be seen as sympathetic because they either know its wrong, and/or know that its not something seen as socially positive to say in public and still be seen as a “good person.”
What I believe is happening now is that people like this feel that Trump with his open racism has made this kind of talk socially acceptable, which is why we’re seeing more public displays of racism.
“socially acceptable”=normalized
Now that racism is normalized, I believe it is not merely just more visible but actually increasing, becoming more pronounced also.
Yes, and now it’s socially acceptable to become even more openly racist because that’s the “natural order” or something, plus who wants to be “politically correct” anymore? Or polite? Or gracious?
It’s all totally hypocritical, plus vile, revolting and disgusting. But certainly racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia are well on the way to being the new “norms” for our society.
A very sad and despressing state of affairs.
I agree that the GOP does seem like a cult anymore. The things that I hear some of them say are just crazy talk. Totally weird sometimes but said with absolute conviction that what they’re saying makes some sort of sense.
I see racism as increasing among the subset that is mature or older, especially those who get their information mostly from Facebook or Fox News or their friends.
I think it is decreasing among younger people, just more of the increasing polarization.
Is the race narrowing or is the polling designed to elicit headlines and clickbait? Monmouth has not had the race farther apart than 5 points in any of their polling in Va. So, I find it problematic to uncritically accept the as yet unproven narrative designed to hype the race for local and national media.
In addition, they did no polling that I remember in 2016, and Real Clear Politics has no poll for that university in that election. Nationally, their last poll had Clinton ahead by 6 pts. in the popular vote which was about the worst showing other than the LA Times which had Trump wining the popular vote by 3%.
Most of the polling was pretty bad for the VA presidential race in 2016 with Christopher Newport and Hampton University having double digit point leads for Clinton at times, and then having Trump ahead in the very next poll or a poll soon after. In the last Presidential election in VA, Roanoke and Emerson had the best track record as many of their polls had Clinton ahead by 5-6 pts. after Labor Day. Guess what? They have Northam up by 5 and 6 pts.
At the end of the primaries Sanders supporters were telling me Perriello was going to win or it would be close, but I told them it was more likely Northam would win by double digits. I actually canvas and talk to voters in their homes in the Commonwealth you others know as Virginia.
Last year’s election left me and many of the people I worked with rethinking the merits of disenfranchisement. Our form of democracy doesn’t work with an electorate as ignorant as the one we have, nor the pundits we have that pass themselves off as experts. Boo or Martin has occasional nuggets of useful inside information or wisdom garnered from his experience. However, the stuff he wrote on Perriello, the VA Dem. Primary and the salutary effects of monopoly busting as a panacea for WWC was just embarrassing. He really should not comment on subjects and areas he has a very limited working knowledge. It is a waste of his time when he could write on a subject he knows better. It is also a waste of an unfamiliar reader’s time, and the reader is left less informed than if they had never read the post or article. For a reader more experienced with the state, it comes across almost like an affront.
For a reader more experienced with the state, that’s what comments are for. Say what you will about Martin, nobody is more willing to provide a place for people who disagree with them.
I’ve posted this before and I’ll post now and very likely again in the future.
Republicans collectively are bad people. They may range in terms of social skills from simple libertarians who selfishly don’t want to pay any taxes to full blown racist fascist cops or the 1% who want to create a new feudal order where the rich own everything and everybody or theocrats who want to police how everybody lives from their religion, their sex lives, and how they say hello to each other during the holiday season.
Whether they smile, have kids, make interesting small talk at cocktail parties, are on Medicaid, have parents on Medicaid, or like to coach youth sports doesn’t really matter as far as their lack of empathy, lack of commitment to empiricism, or belief in a common good beyond their own dominance in every venue.
Republicans are a cult not a party. And racism isn’t a choice or a byproduct. It’s a central, core belief that to a great extent defines who they are and certainly is a signifier of who’s in the cult and who isn’t.
The fact is that even if there are exceptions to those generalizations it doesn’t really change how to deal with them collectively.
Collectively, they confirm on a near daily basis that they don’t give a shit about the continuity of the institutions in this country other than their religions, they don’t give a shit about anyone less fortunate than themselves, in this or any other country, and they respect the value of money and property more highly than human life other than their own family.
They are willfully twisted people who choose to be or sympathize and are comfortable with racists.
There was a time when I was loathe to broad brush all republicans this way, but you almost have to when they continue to support an openly racist, bigoted, incompetent and otherwise unfit President as Trump is. And I particularly wonder about those who have children, and how they justify their support for a man who behaves in ways that no responsible parent would ever want their child to emulate.
Agree with you. Hate to use broad brushes but anymore seems apt.
How the so-called party of “personal responsibility” and alleged “family values” can twist their brains around voting for someone as clearly depraved as Trump is beggars belief… except when you come back to the dull tawdry reality that Republicans have never ever stood for such things as personal responsibility – being the eternal victims of the universe that they are – as well as family values.
It’s all about MEEEEEEEEEE! What’s in it for MEEEEEEEEEE??? And MEEEEEEEEEEEE better be a member of the white tribe.
Ugh.
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
– John Kenneth Galbraith
“For the Republican Party to break out of this transformation into a fascist party”
Are you under the impression that they are in any way whatsoever interested in breaking out? Can’t see it.
Agreed. They see this is a feature, not a bug.
And how is this any different that the Republican Party since the advent of the Southern Strategy? Only now it’s not dog whistles.
As many know, I live in a rural predominantly white community. I don’t want to rehash that discussion.
Let’s not forget that the Democrats have lost both the money and the votes provided by organized labor due to the loss of manufacturing jobs along with organized and persistent attacks on labor.
Yes. And that begs the question: what, exactly, have Democrats done over the past 3 decades, and currently, to offer something of real value to workers, especially those no longer protected by unions?
What are they offering now?
Yammering on about Russia ain’t gonna put food on the table. Just saying…
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#middle-class
Thanks for that quote. Of course a disgusting POS like Gingrich would come around. I always said he’d bend his knees to Trump, and there you have it.
It’s all and only about money and power. The end.
Slimey, skeevy, sleazy, disgusting suck up Newt.