Study: Republicans Leaving Party, tired of two evils argument

[Uriah]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...Evils-Argument


A new study by the Frontier Lab, a conservative market research group, found that Republican voters who leave the party do so because they are are tired of being told to vote Republican as the "lesser of two evils." The study, "Switching Behavior: Modeling disaffiliation from the Republican brand," is published on the group's website and applies scientific methods of qualitative research to the GOP's most urgent problem.

Unlike the official Republican National Committee (RNC) "autopsy," which was prepared by consultants and political figures using familiar campaign-season methods such as focus groups and polls, the Frontier Lab study applied a specific methodology from market research, Behavioral Event Modeling (BEM), to understand the specific decisions of a sample of 97 Republicans who had chosen to leave the party in recent years.

Anne Sorock, author of the Frontier Lab study, writes that the RNC autopsy failed to provide "meaningful insights about how the Republican Party’s adherents are interacting with the brand as it stands." In an interview with Breitbart News, she expanded on her criticism of the RNC's self-examination, saying that the RNC's decision to use political consultants was "a perfect example of everything they are doing wrong."

The Frontier Lab study includes both conservative and moderate Republicans, and identified four key events that prompted individuals to "disaffiliate" from the party. One was the rejection of the "lesser of two evils" argument--the argument that voters had to support a bad Republican because the Democratic candidate would invariably be worse. Both conservatives and moderates are tired of the "two evils" argument, Sorock said.

A second event was a loss of hope in the Republican Party--a sentiment connected to the feeling that the party could no longer deliver on its promises because leaders had abandoned their principles. "The lack of perceived leadership by principle was strongly connected to this loss of hope," Sorock writes, noting that the GOP could reverse that perception through better communication and through actions more consistent with principles.

A third reason that Republicans had decided to detach themselves from the party label was "affiliation with a new community"--primarily the Tea Party, Sorock says, which offers the kind of "camaraderie" that the GOP itself no longer provides its members. Talk radio was another form of community, albeit one facilitated through electronic and social media, that provided what the Republican Party itself failed to offer.

Finally, a fourth reason Republicans identified for leaving was "perceived betrayal by the GOP establishment." Specifically, Sorock notes, respondents said that when party leaders attacked a candidate they supported, they experienced the attack as a personal slight and felt disconnected from the GOP itself as a result. Sorock told Breitbart News that Republicans "across the ideological spectrum" described similar experiences.

The good news for Republicans, Sorock says, is that disaffiliation can be reversed if Republicans strive to create a sense of community around shared principles and abandon the "two evils" argument--without attacking weak candidates. The ongoing "disaffiliation from the Republican label is not only, or even primarily, a matter of philosophical differences," she writes. Better leadership, not new policies, may hold the key.

[Lucille]

That's great news. Not sure I'm going to stay myself. I'm a PC, but we're not welcome-the Old Guard lies, cheats, and shuts us down at every turn.

[heavenlyboy34]

w00t! Die, GOP! Throw it in the woods!

[Anti-Neocon]

Not good. If we're going to have any success we can't leave like a bunch of sore losers when the best is yet to come.

[Lucille]

Not good. If we're going to have any success we can't leave like a bunch of sore losers when the best is yet to come.

The GOP is irredeemable. Everyone hates it, even its own members. It would be better to start a new party.

[Bastiat's The Law]

The GOP is irredeemable. Everyone hates it, even its own members. It would be better to start a new party.

No third party has won in 150 years of history. The American consciousness won't vote for a third party ever.

[heavenlyboy34]

No third party has won in 150 years of history. The American consciousness won't vote for a third party ever.

Theodore Roosevelt.

[phill4paul]

Good.

[georgiaboy]

The good news for Republicans, Sorock says, is that disaffiliation can be reversed if Republicans strive to create a sense of community around shared principles and abandon the "two evils" argument--without attacking weak candidates. The ongoing "disaffiliation from the Republican label is not only, or even primarily, a matter of philosophical differences," she writes. Better leadership, not new policies, may hold the key.

Based on the issues she cited, this is the worst set of recommendations to fix those issues I've ever seen. Sense of Community? Weak candidates? Better leaders? Change the messaging? No philosophical differences?

Her list of issues was:
use of "lesser of two evils" argument
"abandoning principles"
"lack of camaraderie"
"betrayal through attacking candidates"

The root cause of all of those is precisely a conflict of principles. Though the GOP is supposed to represent small government principles, time after time its members and elected leaders who bear its name do not. We have Republicans who have and to this day continue to vote for the continued expansion of government over and over again, and who fail to support good legislation that would begin to chip away at the size and scope of big government. Those who actually are trying to reduce the size of the government are attacked from within their own party. No one needs a study to see it.

Thing is, I'm staying to wrest my party back from the big gov't republicans. I'll vote for the good ones, and sit out or go third party when the GOP candidate is unworthy.

[cajuncocoa]

Good. I already left the GOP, and I'm not going back.

[Icymudpuppy]

Theodore Roosevelt.

TR lost to Woodrow Wilson when he ran on the Bull Moose (Progressive) Ticket. He beat out Taft, true, but he still lost. He won the presidency as a Republican in 1900.

[Lucille]

Martin Armstrong: Republican Party Splitting In TWO – 3rd Party Rising for 2016
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ising-for-2016

Economic Conservatives have lost their representation. There is only the Marxist left and the Religious Right that care more about abortion and gay rights than the economic survival of themselves and their posterity. Our computer has been warning that there will be a huge spike in Third Party activity for 2016. There is a high risk that the Republican Party will split. Look at this chart carefully. You will see two previous big Third Party spikes. This is what is coming in 2016 and it is being driving by the impractical rise in taxation mixed with the decline in economic growth.

There is a middle ground – the economic conservatives who have lost their voice. They were the people who put Reagan in office. But the Republican Party began in the early 1980′s to court the Religious Right. I warned them at that point in time the Religious Right would do a reverse takeover. They laughed. Bush, Jr. did precisely that. The focus became abortion, gay rights, and just about anything but sound economics. The Republican Party had me meet people who desired running for President. I would fly out to meet them to brief them on the global economy. At the same time, I was asked my opinion about their capabilities. When it came to George Bush Jr, I was asked to meet with him but I was told this was “different” and they wanted me to be an adviser because I was told he was “stupid”. I was stunned. When I asked why would they make such a person President, I was told he had the “name”.

[...] This is why Dick Cheney really was President pulling the actual strings – not Bush, Jr.

Needless to say, tons of emails have been coming in since there has been public comment confirming there is talk about the Republican Party splitting up. It is INEVITABLE because John Boehner has virtually destroyed everything the economic conservatives stood for. This is the man that retaliated against any Republican that supported Ron Paul. This is the man who sees business as usual as the path to power with no purpose. Boehner has done more to destroy the Republican Party than perhaps anyone in history. The childish retaliation against Economic Conservatives demonstrates they have no party. This will be the source of the Third Party movement leaving the Religious Right and the Marxists on the fringe as they try to resurrect a more sensible approach down the middle based upon practical economics.

Consequently, the computer is the computer. It forecasts trends without human bias. It has been my privileged role as that of Adam Smith – to simply observe and record. Instead of trying to prove a theory, I have only sought to understand how everything ticks...

[heavenlyboy34]

TR lost to Woodrow Wilson when he ran on the Bull Moose (Progressive) Ticket. He beat out Taft, true, but he still lost. He won the presidency as a Republican in 1900.

Ah, yes, you are correct. I haz teh embarrassment. So many GOP factions and spats I get them mixed up sometimes. /facepalm @ self

[torchbearer]

TR lost to Woodrow Wilson when he ran on the Bull Moose (Progressive) Ticket. He beat out Taft, true, but he still lost. He won the presidency as a Republican in 1900.

wilson betrayed cleveland.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Theodore Roosevelt.

He didn't win. That was circa 1912. You have to go back well over a century to find an example of a successful third party.

[Bastiat's The Law]

More over, Theodore Roosevelt was a popular two-term President before he ran under a third party label and he still couldn't pull out a victory.

[GregSarnowski]

Warning, speculative rant...

I would not be surprised to see the CFR-vehicle "Americans Elect" pop up again, and if Rand wins the GOP primary, run a candidate to divide the conservative vote. In the last two election cycles they have been insurance against Ron. Notice how despite spending many millions and getting ballot-access in the majority of states, they didn't even bother to put up a candidate against Obama/Romney. Now I don't think it's paranoid to expect this happen again, with Rand being even more formidable opposition to the empire. And if they do put up a candidate expect that candidate to be in all the media coverage, polls, and debates - unilke every other legitimate third party-nominee.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Warning, speculative rant...

I would not be surprised to see the CFR-vehicle "Americans Elect" pop up again, and if Rand wins the GOP primary, run a candidate to divide the conservative vote. In the last two election cycles they have been insurance against Ron. Notice how despite spending many millions and getting ballot-access in the majority of states, they didn't even bother to put up a candidate against Obama/Romney. Now I don't think it's paranoid to expect this happen again, with Rand being even more formidable opposition to the empire. And if they do put up a candidate expect that candidate to be in all the media coverage, polls, and debates - unilke every other legitimate third party-nominee.

I thought about this scenario quite a bit and it seems plausible. They could run this from several different angles. Like running a rich, billionaire who's perceived by the media to be "moderate", i.e. Bloomberg. Or they could have a "moderate" republican bolt the party and run as a progressive to split the republican vote like Theodore Roosevelt did, thus guaranteeing democratic victory. I think Chris Christie fits perfectly in this scenario. The third angle would be to play upon the gullible patriotic fervor of conservatives and run a former high-ranking general from the military that is well-respected. Once upon a time this could have been David Petraeus.

[anaconda]

Theodore Roosevelt.

Bankster constructed.

[BAllen]

Oh, yeah cut & run. That'll work!

[Henry Rogue]

In reference to the op article, what does that tell you about the people who stayed, (excluding embedded liberty activist of course)? Sheep.

[Quark]

I'm not sure if that is a good thing. Doesn't one have to be registered Republican to vote in the primary? If the base we need to vote for liberty-minded Republicans is leaving the party, then the GOP candidates won't be liberty-minded.

[GregSarnowski]

I'm not sure if that is a good thing. Doesn't one have to be registered Republican to vote in the primary? If the base we need to vote for liberty-minded Republicans is leaving the party, then the GOP candidates won't be liberty-minded.

well I know in New Hampshire at least unaffiliated voters can participate in either primary. but I agree with your overall point. hopefully this study is more just a lagging indicator from last November and Rand and others are inspiring the right people to get involved.

[enoch150]

Warning, speculative rant...

I would not be surprised to see the CFR-vehicle "Americans Elect" pop up again, and if Rand wins the GOP primary, run a candidate to divide the conservative vote. In the last two election cycles they have been insurance against Ron. Notice how despite spending many millions and getting ballot-access in the majority of states, they didn't even bother to put up a candidate against Obama/Romney. Now I don't think it's paranoid to expect this happen again, with Rand being even more formidable opposition to the empire. And if they do put up a candidate expect that candidate to be in all the media coverage, polls, and debates - unilke every other legitimate third party-nominee.

I thought about this scenario quite a bit and it seems plausible. They could run this from several different angles. Like running a rich, billionaire who's perceived by the media to be "moderate", i.e. Bloomberg. Or they could have a "moderate" republican bolt the party and run as a progressive to split the republican vote like Theodore Roosevelt did, thus guaranteeing democratic victory. I think Chris Christie fits perfectly in this scenario. The third angle would be to play upon the gullible patriotic fervor of conservatives and run a former high-ranking general from the military that is well-respected. Once upon a time this could have been David Petraeus.

Americans Elect was formed in 2010, so they were really only involved in the 2012 election. I believe they support (ed) David Walker, the former US Comptroller General. At least one of their national directors did. I have a 24 page campaign strategy written by him, complete with names of campaign staff, ad scripts, and a five week budget. They were looking for someone to focus just on fiscal issues, like what has been mentioned in this thread. They figured, at the very least, they could get a bunch of email addresses from people who were primarily focused on fiscal issues for 2016. David Walker was apparently aware of the effort and they thought it likely that he would run if he got the AE nomination. The problem was that their entire strategy hinged on getting David Walker the nomination through AE and neither Walker nor anyone else got enough votes of support by their own rules. That's why they didn't run a candidate.

[GregSarnowski]

Americans Elect was formed in 2010, so they were really only involved in the 2012 election. I believe they support (ed) David Walker, the former US Comptroller General. At least one of their national directors did. I have a 24 page campaign strategy written by him, complete with names of campaign staff, ad scripts, and a five week budget. They were looking for someone to focus just on fiscal issues, like what has been mentioned in this thread. They figured, at the very least, they could get a bunch of email addresses from people who were primarily focused on fiscal issues for 2016. David Walker was apparently aware of the effort and they thought it likely that he would run if he got the AE nomination. The problem was that their entire strategy hinged on getting David Walker the nomination through AE and neither Walker nor anyone else got enough votes of support by their own rules. That's why they didn't run a candidate.

I could swear there was a similar org from the same characters in 2008, even if it wasn't called Americans Elect.

Either way the AE Board of Directors was basically a Who's Who of the status-quo. Let's just say I'm suspicious that the same people who orchestrated the economic situation are the one's who are going to save us from it.

[ican'tvote]

The GOP is not the problem. The GOP is a vehicle. It's who's behind the wheel that matters. This is true of all political parties.

[GregSarnowski]

The GOP is not the problem. The GOP is a vehicle. It's who's behind the wheel that matters. This is true of all political parties.

If the GOP were a car what kind of car would it be?

I don't know but I bet it would drive 25 mph on the highway with its blinker on the whole time.

[heavenlyboy34]

The GOP is not the problem. The GOP is a vehicle. It's who's behind the wheel that matters. This is true of all political parties.

Some truth to that. All political parties should be thrown deep into the woods.

[heavenlyboy34]

If the GOP were a car what kind of car would it be?

I don't know but I bet it would drive 25 mph on the highway with its blinker on the whole time.

And a turbo button to plow people over at 120 mph when they get within striking distance.(for profit, of course):P

[Cleaner44]

This is us winning! We need to tear down the old rotted GOP before a new small government party can be established. This is the very essence of the Ron Paul R3VOLUTION. Helping candidates like McCain and Romney lose is a joy. I love to encourage others to boycott the BIG GOVT Republicans and it is working. Romney got even less votes in the 2012 election than McCain did in 2008 and that is when our population increased. Winning!