Associated Press
POSTED: 03:30 a.m. HST, Nov 17, 2012
LAST UPDATED: 08:05 a.m. HST, Nov 17, 2012
WASHINGTON » To hear some Republicans tell it, the Grand Old Party needs to get with the times.
Some of the early prescriptions offered by officials and operatives to rebuild after devastating elections: retool the party message to appeal to Latinos, women and working-class people; upgrade antiquated get-out-the-vote systems with the latest technology. Teach candidates how to handle the new media landscape.
From longtime GOP luminaries to the party’s rising stars, almost everyone asked about the Republicans’ Nov. 6 election drubbing seems to agree that a wholesale update is necessary for a party that appears to be running years behind Democrats in adapting to rapidly changing campaigns and an evolving electorate.
Interviews with more than a dozen Republicans at all levels of the party indicated that postelection soul-searching must quickly turn into a period of action.
“We’ve got to have a very brutally honest review from stem to stern of what we did and what we didn’t do, and what worked and what failed,” said former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who ran the party in the 1990s.
The party “has to modernize in a whole wide range of ways,” added former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who ran against White House nominee Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential primary. “We were clearly wrong on a whole range of fronts.”
To determine what went wrong, the Republican National Committee is examining every detail of the 2012 elections, with the goal of rebuilding the party for the future — much as the Democratic Party did in the 1980s after suffering a series of stinging losses at all levels of government.
Now, as was the case back then, the stakes are enormous for the party that failed to win the White House and has lost the popular vote for several national elections in a row. They’re perhaps even higher for Republicans grappling for ways to court a rapidly changing electorate whose voting groups don’t naturally gravitate toward the GOP. The dangers of failing to act could be severe: permanent minority status.
So it’s little surprise that, after the election, some Republicans were quick to sound stark warnings.
The scale of the losses largely shocked a party whose top-shelf operatives went into Election Day believing Republicans had at least a decent chance of capturing the White House and gaining ground in Congress, where Republicans controlled the House and had a sizable minority in the Senate.
Instead, Romney lost all but one of the nine contested states, North Carolina, to President Barack Obama and was trounced in the electoral vote. Republicans also lost ground to Democrats in both houses of Congress, though Republicans retained their House majority.
How to move forward dominated the discussions at last week’s Republican Governors Association meeting in Las Vegas, where some of the party’s leading voices castigated Romney’s assessment — made in what was supposed to be a private telephone call to donors — that Obama won re-election because of the “gifts” the president had provided to blacks, Hispanics and young voters. These governors faulted Romney.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal attributed Romney’s loss to a lack of “a specific vision that connected with the American people.”
Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who describes himself as a “pro-choice moderate Republican,” echoed Republicans across the spectrum when he said last week: “We need to be a larger-tent party.” Brown lost his seat to Democrat Elizabeth Warren.
Across the board, Republicans say that arguably the most urgent task facing the party is changing its attitude about immigration as it looks to woo Hispanics. This rapidly growing group voted overwhelmingly for Obama, by margins of 7-to-1 over Romney, who had shifted to the right on the issue during the GOP primary.
It didn’t take long after the election for even staunch conservatives to start changing their tune on immigration. Days after the election, even conservative TV host Sean Hannity said he would support an immigration bill.
Said Barbour: “If we would be for good economic policy in terms of immigration, that would go a long way toward solving the political problem.”
It’s not just Hispanics.
Republicans said they also have work to do with single women and younger voters, many of whom tend to be more liberal on social issues than the current Republican Party. These Republicans said a change in tone is needed, though not a change in principles such as opposition to abortion.
“We need to make sure that we’re not perceived as intolerant,” said Ron Kaufman, a veteran Republican strategist who advised Romney’s campaign. “The bottom line is we were perceived to be intolerant on some issues. And tone-deaf on others.”
Republicans also said the party has to work on its relationship with working-class voters.
“Republicans have to start understanding that small business and entrepreneurs are important, but the people who work for them are also important,” said Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., who lost his seat to Democrat Ann Kuster. “We’ve got to be compassionate conservatives.”
Party leaders also said the GOP needs to change how it communicates its message. Obama’s campaign, they said, was particularly effective at talking directly to voters, and building relationships over long periods of time, whereas the GOP was more focused on top-down communication such as TV ads and direct mail.
“There are whole sections of the American public that we didn’t even engage with,” Gingrich said.
Others pointed to the pressing need to recruit candidates who know how to stick to a carefully honed message, especially in a Twitter-driven era. Among their case studies: Senate candidates Richard Mourdock in Indiana and Todd Akin in Missouri, who both discussed rape and pregnancy during the campaign, to the chagrin of party leaders looking to narrow the Democrats’ advantage among women.
“We need candidates who are capable of articulating their policy positions without alienating massive voting blocs,” said Kevin McLaughlin, a Republican operative who worked on several Senate races for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Many Republicans say the party doesn’t have a choice but to change — and quickly.
Said Kaufmann: “In this business, either you learn and grow or you die.”
Why try to help them understand why they lose elections? They lose elections because they do not want to learn. They are too busy TELLING to spend time listening. THEY are the "job creators," worthy of praise and tax cuts. You and I might think jobs are created when customers buy goods and services, so the customers are the "job creators." But obviously, our views are unbalanced.
A few of their elected officials, who NEED to win elections if they are going to remain "leaders," have been forced to re-evealuate their failed election campaign. It is clear from comments here many Republican activists do not think they did anything wrong. The problem is "the voters are dumb." Or Barack the crypto-Muslim secret Kenyan commie bribed enough voters with "stuff," because blacks, women, gays, Latinos "want stuff." Unlike the rich, who only want tax cuts, not because tax cuts brings "stuff," but because "it is good economic policy."
If you engage these wounded Republicans, you are likely to have them turn on you. Or, more worse, they might something and win an occasional election, which only makes them more troublesome. I suggest leave them wallowing. And bellowing. And licking their wounds.
Well said. But they won't listen.
Review the comments of the various Republicans above. See how few of them suggest ANY openness to self-criticism of the Republican positions. I see ONE comment which admits the GOP might have won if the GOP "a more middle of the road candidate" they would have won. But even that acknowledgment is slightly off. Romney's problem was not simply that he was seen as "too extreme." It was also that nobody trusted him when he said what he stood for. It was a REPUBLICAN JOKE which begins, "A liberal, a conservative and a moderate walk into a bar...."
As you review each comment, notice how many of them are clinging tight to an ideological and unbalanced explanation for why Obama won. It is not an accident they don't want to let go of those false beliefs. They comfort them and prevent them from facing reality:"Obama was the obstructor" : You guys really don't want to let go of that one, do you? The reality is, Obama is a centrist by nature. You guys think he's some sort of "Euro-socialist." That is nonsense. Here's a thought experiment worth constructing. How would we develop an objective means for determining how "left" or "right" a policy is? Against HISTORICAL positions held by elected officials in the United States. And against positions currently held by political figures in advanced industrial countries?
On what issues would you argue Obama is "left of center" from other Democratic presidents or major senate leaders over the past 75 years? How are Obama's positions "left of center" when compared with those of political leaders in the other major OECD countries?
Obama often takes Republican ideas, back when there was a meaningful "moderate" Republican policy apparatus, and uses them as the basis for his proposals in the hope he can get Republicans to recognize and accept their own ideas as as worthy of support.
To what extent have Republicans been the "obstructors"? Is there an objective standard for assessing this? Maybe you are prepared to admit Republicans have used the filibuster far more times than it has been used in the past? To the point where every significant bill needs 60% support to pass, instead of the traditional majority? Isn't that good evidence of Republican "obstructionism"? Add to that Mitch McConnell's open statement that their number one priority was to deny Obama a second term, a statement which I do not see many Republicans denouncing.
Perhaps you see the GOP "obstructionism" as an essential, even heroic response to the challenges facing the country. That doesn't make it less "obstructionist."
I disagree Republicans "comprise nearly half the opinion." The number of people who self-identify as Republican is significantly less than that. And in Hawaii, my area of activity, the Republicans show even less support. I think Democrats have to compete for the "hearts and minds" of the voters. But I do not think that is accomplished by compromising further with the ideological constituencies within the GOP alliance. I think it is done by winning over those voters to a new way of thinking.
And you guys on this site are overwhelmingly too attached to your ideological identities. That's why you come online, to rant as though you are in your neighborhood bar, or perhaps the bar at the Elks Club, to skirmish with the "punks" who aren't "American" enough in your view and to win approval from your likeminded buddies. Not only it obvious today, as you are lamenting the election loss, but go back and read through the comments over the past year. Your guys come here to "make big buddy," not to talk at any depth, or with any subtlety, about the real problems we face. There are exceptions, but they are so rare.
Here's some sincere advice for helping rebuild the Republican Party, but you won't like it: Stop watching Fox News. Seriously. It keeps you guys stoned and confused, unable to see clearly, unable to talk with anyone who is not also stoned. Sober up and come back and we can talk.