2012 or Never: The Push for the White Vote

[mominatrix]

Yeah, it's completely partisan... but there's an interesting question in there... how long can the R's maintain their dependence on the White vote?
==================


Team Romney White-Vote Push: ‘This Is the Last Time Anyone Will Try to Do This’
By Jonathan Chait


May I have this dance?

A Republican strategist said something interesting and revealing on Friday, though it largely escaped attention in the howling gusts of punditry over Mitt Romney’s birth certificate crack and a potential convention-altering hurricane. The subject was a Ron Brownstein story outlining the demographic hit rates each party requires to win in November. To squeak out a majority, Mitt Romney probably needs to win at least 61 percent of the white vote — a figure exceeding what George H.W. Bush commanded over Michael Dukakis in 1988. The Republican strategist told Brownstein, “This is the last time anyone will try to do this” — “this” being a near total reliance on white votes to win a presidential election.

I wrote a long story last February arguing that the Republican Party had grown intensely conscious of both the inescapable gravity of the long-term relative decline of the white population, and the short-term window of opportunity opened for the party by the economic crisis. I think we’re continuing to see the GOP operate under an integrated political and policy strategy constructed on this premise. This is their last, best chance to win an election in the party’s current demographic and ideological form. Future generations of GOP politicians will have to appeal to nonwhite voters who hold far more liberal views about the role of government than does the party’s current base.

The “2012 or never” hypothesis helps explain why a series of Republican candidates, first in the House and most recently at the presidential candidate level, have taken the politically risky step of openly declaring themselves for Paul Ryan’s radical blueprint. Romney’s campaign has been floating word of late that it sees a potential presidency as following the mold of James K. Polk — fulfilling dramatic policy change, and leaving after a single term. “Multiple senior Romney advisers assured me that they had had conversations with the candidate in which he conveyed a depth of conviction about the need to try to enact something like Ryan’s controversial budget and entitlement reforms,” reports the Huffington Post’s Jonathan Ward. “Romney, they said, was willing to count the cost politically in order to achieve it.” David Leonhardt floats a similar sketch, plausibly outlining how Romney could transform the shape of American government by using a Senate procedure that circumvents the filibuster to quickly lock in large regressive tax cuts and repeal of health insurance subsidies to tens of millions of Americans.

Blowing up the welfare state and affecting the largest upward redistribution of wealth in American history is a politically tricky project (hence Romney's belief that he may need to forego a second term). Hence the Romney campaign's clear plan to suture off its slowly declining but still potent base. Romney’s political-policy theme is an unmistakable appeal to identity politics. On Medicare, Romney is putting himself forward as the candidate who will outspend Obama, at least when it comes to benefits for people 55 years old and up. Romney will restore the $700 billion in Medicare budget cuts imposed by Obama to its rightful owners — people who are currently old.
He will cut subsidies to the non-elderly people who would get insurance through Obamacare — a program that, Romney’s ads remind older voters, is “NOT FOR YOU.” Romney’s repeated ads on welfare, blaring the brazen lie that Obama has repealed the welfare work requirement, hammer home the same theme. The purpose is to portray Obama as diverting resources from us to them.

In their heart of hearts, Romney and Ryan would probably prefer a more sweeping, across-the-board assault on the welfare state. But the immense popularity of the largest, middle-class social insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security force them into the divide-and-conquer gambit. They can promise to hold their disproportionately old, white base harmless and impose the entire brunt of their ambitious downsizing of government on young, poor, and disproportionately nonwhite Democratic constituencies.
There’s no moral or policy rationale for Romney’s proposal to increase social safety net spending on current retirees while cutting Pell Grants, Medicaid, children’s health insurance, and food stamps to shreds. The nonwhite share of the electorate is increasing fast enough that the political math of this sort of gambit will grow completely impossible — there will simply be, from the right-wing perspective, too many of them and not enough us. But there may be just enough us to pull out one more win, and thus the Republican determination to make such a win as consequential as possible.

nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/2012-or-never-for-gops-white-base.html

[msmerymac]

I was just wondering this. I think someone on either Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher (shut up!) were talking this week about how the Republicans actually seem to be trying to see if they can win an election by JUST appealing to the white vote. But of course, my question is - how long will that be sustainable? Maybe 1 or 2 more election cycles?

[lys]

Well, we wouldn't want anyone to actually do something to get us on a sustainable finacial track, improve the economy and employment rate.

A side note - it came to light that MSNBC did not show minorities who gave speeches or were in the audience last night. Another manipulation of coverage to help their favored candidate.

ABC employee said that the RNC was happy to be having a party while black people were drowning. - No outrage over that. (And Obama was out findraising - does that count as partying as well?)

[msmerymac]

Tell me how cutting social safety nets will grow the economy or create jobs. Because it never has.

[marie427]

This article is a little to Doomsday-ish for my liking but it does bring up the interesting question about the white vote. While it doesn't seem like it from my perspective, I would think GOP advisors et. al are trying to figure out who's going to support to the GOP after all the old white people are gone. What the article is speculating sounds like it would be a death blow to the GOP, so unless the team trying to lead the GOP into the future is full of idiots, I really couldn't fathom them going this route with a Romney/Ryan administration.

But I'm also kind of naive, so...

[heyjude]

Really? On politico right now they are popping champagne for the next gen GOP. See: The Placeholder Candidate.

[bqbride]

Aug 29, 2012 11:35:14 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Tell me how cutting social safety nets will grow the economy or create jobs. Because it never has.

It won't, and that is not their goal. The goal is the upward redistribution of wealth. If you think they give a shit about the poor, the middle class, or jobs, you would be 100% wrong.