Internal GOP Study: You're Doing It Wrong

[BDKJMU]

As long as the Republican Party stays out of his way we'll all welcome President Elect Christie in the fall of 2016.

I agree. They need to get Sarah Palin out of the mix. I have family members that are Democrats and think that Palin will be nominated in the next cycle. Yeah, after 2 losing elections the GOP will run a failed VP candidate that has quit every job she's been elected to and has less expierence than she did in 2008. Chrisite would be a great candidate.

Will all due respect, anyone, conk or donk, who thinks that Palin will be nominated in 2016 is delusional. She might be in and out of the spotlight, but she has about as much chance of getting the R nomination in 2016 as #16 seed JMU does of winning their 1st round game vs #16 seed LIU then in the 2nd round beating #1 seed Indiana...

[houndawg]

I agree. They need to get Sarah Palin out of the mix. I have family members that are Democrats and think that Palin will be nominated in the next cycle. Yeah, after 2 losing elections the GOP will run a failed VP candidate that has quit every job she's been elected to and has less expierence than she did in 2008. Chrisite would be a great candidate.

Will all due respect, anyone, conk or donk, who thinks that Palin will be nominated in 2016 is delusional. She might be in and out of the spotlight, but she has about as much chance of getting the R nomination in 2016 as #16 seed JMU does of winning their 1st round game vs #16 seed LIU then in the 2nd round beating #1 seed Indiana...

I doubt she wants any part of being nominated when she can't handle the pressure of the easiest elected office in the nation.

[CID1990]

I have family members that are Democrats and think that Palin will be nominated in the next cycle.

Your family members are retards times two.



Sent from the center of the universe.

[Ibanez]

I have family members that are Democrats and think that Palin will be nominated in the next cycle.

Your family members are retards times two.



Sent from the center of the universe.

Watch it fuck face.

[Skjellyfetti]

I like Chris Christie. We have pretty similar stances on immigration, gun control, education, etc. Might be tough for him to get through the primaries, but I could vote for him depending on who the Democrat is.

All this just means Republicans will swift boat him and choose some halfwit mouth-breather, though.

[houndawg]

I like Chris Christie. We have pretty similar stances on immigration, gun control, education, etc. Might be tough for him to get through the primaries, but I could vote for him depending on who the Democrat is.

All this just means Republicans will swift boat him and choose some halfwit mouth-breather, though.

I can't wait to see the campaign ads showing him singing the praises of Obama during the flood.

All praise be upon Obama, the compassionate, the merciful.....bringer of the disaster relief...

[JohnStOnge]

"Right" is relative.

If there's no higher power it doesn't even exist. There IS no right or wrong. But the point is that a political party should do what it sees as right. If all you're going to do is study what positions you should take to get the most votes then take them accordingly there's no point in having a political party. That's not leadership.

A political party should establish a set of principles then make the case for those principles. It should not, for instance, go from opposing a "path to citizenship" for people who came into this country illegally to favoring one in order to get more of the Hispanic vote.

[JohnStOnge]

I"ve said it in other threads before and I'll say it again: Christie has no shot. He did before that suck up to Obama thing. But not now.

Romney's biggest problem, as has been written and as is documented in exit polling data, is that turnout among the groups that traditionally vote strongly Republican was down. Christie would have a tough time getting the Republican nomination because majorities of those groups aren't going to want him. And if he does get the nomination? If you think Romney had a problem with low relative turnout among groups that traditionally vote Republican you ain't seen nothing yet.

[danefan]

I"ve said it in other threads before and I'll say it again: Christie has no shot. He did before that suck up to Obama thing. But not now.

Romney's biggest problem, as has been written and as is documented in exit polling data, is that turnout among the groups that traditionally vote strongly Republican was down. Christie would have a tough time getting the Republican nomination because majorities of those groups aren't going to want him. And if he does get the nomination? If you think Romney had a problem with low relative turnout among groups that traditionally vote Republican you ain't seen nothing yet.

What groups are those?

[kalm]

I"ve said it in other threads before and I'll say it again: Christie has no shot. He did before that suck up to Obama thing. But not now.

Romney's biggest problem, as has been written and as is documented in exit polling data, is that turnout among the groups that traditionally vote strongly Republican was down. Christie would have a tough time getting the Republican nomination because majorities of those groups aren't going to want him. And if he does get the nomination? If you think Romney had a problem with low relative turnout among groups that traditionally vote Republican you ain't seen nothing yet.

What groups are those?

Perhaps be meant "moderate" groups who normally vote republican?

Let's look at real data from the 2012 election returns and exit polls. By doing a little math, this data shows that nearly four million more conservative voters turned out in 2012 than turned out in 2004 when President Bush won re-election. Republican 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney got nearly 3 million more conservative votes than President Bush. So conservative turnout was not the problem.

Let me repeat this for emphasis: More conservatives turned out by huge numbers for Romney in 2012 than for Bush in 2004.

In 2012, almost seven million more liberal voters turned out than in 2004, and President Obama got close to six million more liberal votes than John Kerry did in 2004. In addition, President Bush lost moderate voters by nine points in 2004, and Romney lost moderate voters by 15 points in 2012. Thus, the deficit is not among conservatives, but among moderate voters.

While behind slightly in tactics and technology, as I have written before, that is not why Romney and Republicans lost in 2012. More conservative and evangelical voters turned out than in 2004 when Bush won, and President Obama actually underperformed in the 12 target states compared to his national number. This is a much more fundamental challenge.

[kalm]

"Right" is relative.

If there's no higher power it doesn't even exist. There IS no right or wrong. But the point is that a political party should do what it sees as right. If all you're going to do is study what positions you should take to get the most votes then take them accordingly there's no point in having a political party. That's not leadership.

A political party should establish a set of principles then make the case for those principles. It should not, for instance, go from opposing a "path to citizenship" for people who came into this country illegally to favoring one in order to get more of the Hispanic vote.

I get what you're saying, but you can make a fairly strong case that it's the role of the people to lead, not the politicians. Some of the most powerful movements like the populist chataquas of the early 20th century, labor rights, and civil rights forced politicians to move in a direction and enact laws.

Shouldn't political parties evolve?

[danefan]

What groups are those?

Perhaps be meant "moderate" groups who normally vote republican?

Let's look at real data from the 2012 election returns and exit polls. By doing a little math, this data shows that nearly four million more conservative voters turned out in 2012 than turned out in 2004 when President Bush won re-election. Republican 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney got nearly 3 million more conservative votes than President Bush. So conservative turnout was not the problem.

Let me repeat this for emphasis: More conservatives turned out by huge numbers for Romney in 2012 than for Bush in 2004.

In 2012, almost seven million more liberal voters turned out than in 2004, and President Obama got close to six million more liberal votes than John Kerry did in 2004. In addition, President Bush lost moderate voters by nine points in 2004, and Romney lost moderate voters by 15 points in 2012. Thus, the deficit is not among conservatives, but among moderate voters.

While behind slightly in tactics and technology, as I have written before, that is not why Romney and Republicans lost in 2012. More conservative and evangelical voters turned out than in 2004 when Bush won, and President Obama actually underperformed in the 12 target states compared to his national number. This is a much more fundamental challenge.

In other words, the Republicans forgot about the middle. They needed a study to figure that out?

There is also an easy fix for them in 2016.....put some money behind a guy who actually appeals to the middle. Christie is that guy. The problem, of course, is that as long as the Republican party caters to consituents on social issues, it will always give in to the crazies of the party. Take reproductive and gay rights and religion out of the discussion and a lot of moderate voters could stomach voting for a Republican. Will they lose the extreme right voters at the same time? Who else are they going to vote for?

A lot of moderates (myself included) are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. The Republican party does not appeal to me in the least right now.

[Ivytalk]

A lot of moderates (myself included) are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. The Republican party does not appeal to me in the least right now.

Uh, danefan, I have news for you: you're also a tax lawyer! #17 on this week's Tea Party Enemies List.

[houndawg]

Perhaps be meant "moderate" groups who normally vote republican?

In other words, the Republicans forgot about the middle. They needed a study to figure that out?

There is also an easy fix for them in 2016.....put some money behind a guy who actually appeals to the middle. Christie is that guy. The problem, of course, is that as long as the Republican party caters to consituents on social issues, it will always give in to the crazies of the party. Take reproductive and gay rights and religion out of the discussion and a lot of moderate voters could stomach voting for a Republican. Will they lose the extreme right voters at the same time? Who else are they going to vote for?

A lot of moderates (myself included) are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. The Republican party does not appeal to me in the least right now.

That's what I don't get. How can these people be so dense?


All they have to do is ask their wives.

[danefan]

In other words, the Republicans forgot about the middle. They needed a study to figure that out?

There is also an easy fix for them in 2016.....put some money behind a guy who actually appeals to the middle. Christie is that guy. The problem, of course, is that as long as the Republican party caters to consituents on social issues, it will always give in to the crazies of the party. Take reproductive and gay rights and religion out of the discussion and a lot of moderate voters could stomach voting for a Republican. Will they lose the extreme right voters at the same time? Who else are they going to vote for?

A lot of moderates (myself included) are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. The Republican party does not appeal to me in the least right now.

That's what I don't get. How can these people be so dense?


All they have to do is ask their wives.

Or their gay sons and daughter (or their kids' gay friends).

[danefan]

A lot of moderates (myself included) are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. The Republican party does not appeal to me in the least right now.

Uh, danefan, I have news for you: you're also a tax lawyer! #17 on this week's Tea Party Enemies List.

You'd think they'd embrace me....I'm trying to do the same thing for my company that they are....pay less taxes.

[JohnStOnge]

What groups are those?

I did a whole series of posts on that just after the election. I saw the stuff on "conservatives" in 2004 vs. "conservatives" in 2012." But the population is always increasing. 2004 was a long time ago. I didn't look at "conservatives." And I wasn't comparing to 2004. I was comparing to the most recent previous election. Fewer whites voted in 2012 than in 2008. Fewer white Christians. Fewer White protestant Christians. And, within that, fewer "Evangelical Born Again" Christians. And I'm not talking about in percentage terms. I'm talking about in absolute terms.

[houndawg]

What groups are those?

I did a whole series of posts on that just after the election. I saw the stuff on "conservatives" in 2004 vs. "conservatives" in 2012." But the population is always increasing. 2004 was a long time ago. I didn't look at "conservatives." And I wasn't comparing to 2004. I was comparing to the most recent previous election. Fewer whites voted in 2012 than in 2008. Fewer white Christians. Fewer White protestant Christians. And, within that, fewer "Evangelical Born Again" Christians. And I'm not talking about in percentage terms. I'm talking about in absolute terms.

Just because the population is increasing doesn't mean that there are more "conservatives" or more "evangelical born again christians". There could be fewer of them voting because there are fewer of them.

[JohnStOnge]

ust because the population is increasing doesn't mean that there are more "conservatives" or more "evangelical born again christians". There could be fewer of them voting because there are fewer of them.

Yes that's true. But I think that when you look at this election it's clear that there was a turnout dip among definable groups that traditionally vote Republican.

I ran the numbers again this morning using total vote counts from http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and percents of voters reported at the CNN 2004, 2008, and 2012 exit poll web pages. Also looked at Census bureau estimates for numbers of non-hispanic Whites. And for historical results back through 1972 I used the information at http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics ... igion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

First 2012 vs. 2008. I had not looked at the category of people who identified themselves as conservatives but more of them did vote in 2012. About 0.5 million more. However, even though the non-hispanic White population increased by somewhat more than 0.3 million (don't know exactly because the most recent census estimate I could find was July 1, 2011), about 4.3 million fewer Whites not categorized as hispanic voted in 2012. That is big because no Democratic candidate for President has won the majority of the White vote since at least as far back as Nixon vs. McGovern in 1972.

Next look at White Christians. White Protestants, of course, have voted Majority Republican in every Presidential election at least as far back as 1972. 4.8 million fewer of them voted in 2012 than in 2008. In percentage terms that was a 9 percent drop. I suppose we don't know that the drop can't be attributed to a substantial decline in the number of White Protestants over four years. But I sure as heck wouldn't bet on that. More likely the total number of White Protestants in the country was pretty close to the same in 2012 than it was in 2008.

White Catholics voted for the Democratic candidate for President twice since 1972. They voted for Carter over Ford and Clinton over Dole. But they usually vote Republican and did so in both 2008 and 2012. And 1.7 fewer of them voted in 2012 than in 2008.

Combine the two to get White Christians. While there's not enough information on the historical site I used to directly and definitely calculate, it appears clear that White Christians have voted for the Republican Candidate in every election back through 1972. It is a large group. It accounted for 61 percent of voters in 2008 and 57 percent in 2012. McCain beat Obama by 61 to 38 percent and Romney beat Obama by 66 to 33 percent among its members. But 6.6 million fewer of them showed up to vote in 2012 than did in 2008. (it comes out 6.6 to the nearest 10th of a million when you add it before rounding instead of 6.5 like it would if you round first then add to get 4.8 + 1.7). 9 percent drop between 2004 and 2012.

Unfortunately I can't look at how 2004 compares to 2012 in terms of White Protestants, White Catholics, and White Christians overall because the 2004 CNN exit poll page does not break things down by race and religion except for one table that indicates whether voters were "White Evangelical Born Again" or not. It is true that 5.5 million more who identified themselves as in that group voted in 2012 than in 2004. It is also true that 3.6 million more of those who identified themselves as "Conservative" voted in 2012 than in 2004. However, even though the Census Bureau estimated that there were about 1 million more non hispanic Whites in the country on July 1, 2011 than on July 1, 2004, 1.0 million fewer Whites not identified as hispanic voted in 2012 than in 2004. And we're talking about a situation in which, overall, 6.9 million more votes were cast in 2012.

There was clearly a problem for Romney in terms of turnout by Whites in general and White Christians in particular. And it was especially disappointing in light of the expectation. I think the expectation was that they'd get substantially more White Christians, in particular, out to vote than voted in 2008 instead of seeing a 9 percent decline.

[JohnStOnge]

Aside from all that, I must repeat: The candidate himself or herself is important. They're doing all this introspection and analysis while apparently ignoring the fact that the Democrats had a more charismatic, telegenic candidate in each of the last two elections. Perhaps they should put more effort into putting forth better candidates in terms of the impression they create just by the way they look and speak.

Also, again: They lost the election by 51% to 47%. And they Democrats have been the party with a bit of an edge for close to 100 years. It's not like we're talking about a situation in which the Republicans have historically done much better and now there's some trend where all of a sudden there's this big crisis and the Democrats have more of an edge than they've typically had over the past 100 years. Yes the Republicans have had a few short periods of being on top. But most of the time it's been the Democrats. This is not new. Having two relatively mundane candidates lose elections to a charismatic candidate of the opposite party is no reason for the kind of crisis mentality these people are expressing.

[houndawg]

ust because the population is increasing doesn't mean that there are more "conservatives" or more "evangelical born again christians". There could be fewer of them voting because there are fewer of them.

Yes that's true. But I think that when you look at this election it's clear that there was a turnout dip among definable groups that traditionally vote Republican.

I ran the numbers again this morning using total vote counts from http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and percents of voters reported at the CNN 2004, 2008, and 2012 exit poll web pages. Also looked at Census bureau estimates for numbers of non-hispanic Whites. And for historical results back through 1972 I used the information at http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics ... igion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

First 2012 vs. 2008. I had not looked at the category of people who identified themselves as conservatives but more of them did vote in 2012. About 0.5 million more. However, even though the non-hispanic White population increased by somewhat more than 0.3 million (don't know exactly because the most recent census estimate I could find was July 1, 2011), about 4.3 million fewer Whites not categorized as hispanic voted in 2012. That is big because no Democratic candidate for President has won the majority of the White vote since at least as far back as Nixon vs. McGovern in 1972.

Next look at White Christians. White Protestants, of course, have voted Majority Republican in every Presidential election at least as far back as 1972. 4.8 million fewer of them voted in 2012 than in 2008. In percentage terms that was a 9 percent drop. I suppose we don't know that the drop can't be attributed to a substantial decline in the number of White Protestants over four years. But I sure as heck wouldn't bet on that. More likely the total number of White Protestants in the country was pretty close to the same in 2012 than it was in 2008.

White Catholics voted for the Democratic candidate for President twice since 1972. They voted for Carter over Ford and Clinton over Dole. But they usually vote Republican and did so in both 2008 and 2012. And 1.7 fewer of them voted in 2012 than in 2008.

Combine the two to get White Christians. While there's not enough information on the historical site I used to directly and definitely calculate, it appears clear that White Christians have voted for the Republican Candidate in every election back through 1972. It is a large group. It accounted for 61 percent of voters in 2008 and 57 percent in 2012. McCain beat Obama by 61 to 38 percent and Romney beat Obama by 66 to 33 percent among its members. But 6.6 million fewer of them showed up to vote in 2012 than did in 2008. (it comes out 6.6 to the nearest 10th of a million when you add it before rounding instead of 6.5 like it would if you round first then add to get 4.8 + 1.7). 9 percent drop between 2004 and 2012.

Unfortunately I can't look at how 2004 compares to 2012 in terms of White Protestants, White Catholics, and White Christians overall because the 2004 CNN exit poll page does not break things down by race and religion except for one table that indicates whether voters were "White Evangelical Born Again" or not. It is true that 5.5 million more who identified themselves as in that group voted in 2012 than in 2004. It is also true that 3.6 million more of those who identified themselves as "Conservative" voted in 2012 than in 2004. However, even though the Census Bureau estimated that there were about 1 million more non hispanic Whites in the country on July 1, 2011 than on July 1, 2004, 1.0 million fewer Whites not identified as hispanic voted in 2012 than in 2004. And we're talking about a situation in which, overall, 6.9 million more votes were cast in 2012.

There was clearly a problem for Romney in terms of turnout by Whites in general and White Christians in particular. And it was especially disappointing in light of the expectation. I think the expectation was that they'd get substantially more White Christians, in particular, out to vote than voted in 2008 instead of seeing a 9 percent decline.

In 1990 86% of Americans considered themselves Christians, in 2008 only 76% did. 15% of Americans say they have "no religion", twice as many as 20 years ago. Pagans and Wiccans report explosive growth in their numbers.

You're making this harder than it needs to be John.

[JohnStOnge]

In 1990 86% of Americans considered themselves Christians, in 2008 only 76% did. 15% of Americans say they have "no religion", twice as many as 20 years ago. Pagans and Wiccans report explosive growth in their numbers.

You're making this harder than it needs to be John.

No the people making this harder than it is are those looking at every possible explanation instead of the obvious ones right in front if them: 1) The Democrats had a more telegenic and charismatic candidate and 2) the Democrats got better turnout among demographic groups that historically have supported them.

You really don't even need to get into religion. If all had known going in that more than 4 million fewer Non Hispanic Whites would vote than did in 2008 and even more than a million fewer than voted in 2004 everyone would have said Romney had no shot. I remember on election day seeing talking heads saying that the breakpoint for Obama was having Whites account for less than 73 percent of the vote. They ended up accounting for 72 percent.

Meanwhile the number of non Whites voting was up substantially. I'll come back later and post the number (on IPad now so no access to my spreadsheet), but it was a lot. A lot more non Whites voted than in either 2008 or 2004 and fewer Whites did. You don't need to go any farther than that to understand that Romnet wasn't going to win.

[houndawg]

In 1990 86% of Americans considered themselves Christians, in 2008 only 76% did. 15% of Americans say they have "no religion", twice as many as 20 years ago. Pagans and Wiccans report explosive growth in their numbers.

You're making this harder than it needs to be John.

No the people making this harder than it is are those looking at every possible explanation instead of the obvious ones right in front if them: 1) The Democrats had a more telegenic and charismatic candidate and 2) the Democrats got better turnout among demographic groups that historically have supported them.

You really don't even need to get into religion. If all had known going in that more than 4 million fewer Non Hispanic Whites would vote than did in 2008 and even more than a million fewer than voted in 2004 everyone would have said Romney had no shot. I remember on election day seeing talking heads saying that the breakpoint for Obama was having Whites account for less than 73 percent of the vote. They ended up accounting for 72 percent.

Meanwhile the number of non Whites voting was up substantially. I'll come back later and post the number (on IPad now so no access to my spreadsheet), but it was a lot. A lot more non Whites voted than in either 2008 or 2004 and fewer Whites did. You don't need to go any farther than that to understand that Romnet wasn't going to win.

As long as the racist ideologues in control of the GOP remain in power the GOP will remain a party of and for rich white male bitter enders.

[AZGrizFan]

No the people making this harder than it is are those looking at every possible explanation instead of the obvious ones right in front if them: 1) The Democrats had a more telegenic and charismatic candidate and 2) the Democrats got better turnout among demographic groups that historically have supported them.

You really don't even need to get into religion. If all had known going in that more than 4 million fewer Non Hispanic Whites would vote than did in 2008 and even more than a million fewer than voted in 2004 everyone would have said Romney had no shot. I remember on election day seeing talking heads saying that the breakpoint for Obama was having Whites account for less than 73 percent of the vote. They ended up accounting for 72 percent.

Meanwhile the number of non Whites voting was up substantially. I'll come back later and post the number (on IPad now so no access to my spreadsheet), but it was a lot. A lot more non Whites voted than in either 2008 or 2004 and fewer Whites did. You don't need to go any farther than that to understand that Romnet wasn't going to win.

As long as the racist ideologues in control of the GOP remain in power the GOP will remain a party of and for rich white male bitter enders.

Which, ironically, is what the report is basically saying, and yet they're getting flamesprayed for it.

[Skjellyfetti]

In my decades of polling, I recall only one moment when a party had been driven as far from the center as the Republican Party has been today.

The outsize influence of hard-line elements in the party base is doing to the GOP what supporters of Gene McCarthy and George McGovern did to the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s — radicalizing its image and standing in the way of its revitalization.

In those years, the Democratic Party became labeled, to its detriment, as the party of “acid, abortion and amnesty.” With the Democrats’ values far to the left of the silent majority, McGovern lost in a landslide to Richard Nixon in 1972.

While there are no catchy phrases for the Republicans of 2013, their image problems are readily apparent in national polls. The GOP has come to be seen as the more extreme party, the side unwilling to compromise or negotiate seriously to tackle the economic turmoil that challenges the nation.

It is no surprise that even elements of the Republican leadership that had been so confident of a Mitt Romney victory — including when it was clear that he was going to lose the election — are now looking at ways to find more electable candidates and cope with the disproportionate influence of hard-liners in the GOP. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus only scratched the surface this past week when he dissected the party’s November defeat: “There’s no one reason we lost. Our message was weak; our ground game was insufficient; we weren’t inclusive; we were behind in both data and digital; and our primary and debate process needed improvement. So there’s no one solution. There’s a long list of them.”

A long list, but one that doesn’t address the emergence of a staunch conservative bloc that has undermined the GOP’s national image.

The Republican Party’s ratings now stand at a 20-year low, with just 33 percent of the public holding a favorable view of the party and 58 percent judging it unfavorably, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. Although the Democrats are better regarded (47 percent favorable and 46 percent unfavorable), the GOP’s problems are its own, not a mirror image of renewed Democratic strength.

Americans’ values and beliefs are more divided along partisan lines than at any time in the past 25 years. The values gap between Republicans and Democrats is now greater than the one between men and women, young and old, or any racial or class divides.

But while members of the Republican and Democratic parties have become more conservative and liberal, respectively, a bloc of doctrinaire, across-the-board conservatives has become a dominant force on the right. Indeed, their resolve and ultra-conservatism have protected Republican lawmakers from the broader voter backlash that is so apparent in opinion polls.

For decades, my colleagues and I have examined the competing forces and coalitions within the two parties. In our most recent national assessments, we found not only that the percentage of people self-identifying as Republicans had hit historic lows but that within that smaller base, the traditional divides between pro-business economic conservatives and social conservatives had narrowed. There was less diversity of values within the GOP than at any time in the past quarter-century.

The party’s base is increasingly dominated by a highly energized bloc of voters with extremely conservative positions on nearly all issues: the size and role of government, foreign policy, social issues, and moral concerns. They stand with the tea party on taxes and spending and with Christian conservatives on key social questions, such as abortion rights and same-sex marriage.

These staunch conservatives, who emerged with great force in the Obama era, represent 45 percent of the Republican base. According to our 2011 survey, they are demographically and politically distinct from the national electorate. Ninety-two percent are white. They tend to be male, married, Protestant, well off and at least 50 years old.

Knowing how this slice of the electorate came together is key to understanding why GOP lawmakers have been able to withstand the public backlash seen in polls — and why the party will face great difficulty in reinventing itself.

According to our polling, three factors stand out in the emergence of the GOP’s staunch conservative bloc: ideological resistance to President Obama’s policies, discomfort with the changing face of America and the influence of conservative media.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ory_2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;