much like telling a stage 4 cancer patient in very rude terms they're dying and the patient still denies a problem.

calling the shots in DC.

it does occur to me that even with extreme gerrymandering that eventually even the gerrymandered districts would flip too quickly for them to keep up with, unless you factor in ignorance and low information voters, which they nuture. Hmm. Not sure.

Did to FDR (hardening of the judicial arteries). It seems to me that the republicans did not control the federal government for a long time after rejecting the programs designed to help 'common folk' during that era. Now we have the republican controlled house with roughly the same plan.

If the republicans continue to control the government it won't be because they have a good plan; it's because the democrats haven't capitalized on their bad attitude.

My only fear is that they'll do everything they can to take the rest of the country down with them. The more chaos & destruction they generate the happier they'll be.

it may not matter.

K&R

.... the still have to sell ideas and plans that will hurt the American people and
that is something they just can't overcome.

Need an abortion? Just lay back down and let Dr. Good Hands feel you up.

The Post Office which doesn't get a dime of tax money ..... kill it and let FEDEX and UPS
take over ..... the birthday card from Farm City, Nebraska to Seattle, Washington .... not so much.

Public Education that made America great .... kill it too.

Climate Change ..... "it is just not real"

Birth Control ..... let your boss decide what you and your partner can do.

American Jobs Act ..... kill that because it will just help Obama.

So you want to vote? ..... well we have gerrymandered your district so your vote for a congressperson
will not count and go and stand in that line for 5 hours.

...Republican,” the outburst was immediate and vehement: “Corporate greed.”“Old.”“Middle-aged white men.” “Rich.” “Religious.” “Conservative.” “Hypocritical.” “Military retirees.”

Hey, I am a retired Air Force man and I have never voted republican for anything in my life, nor will I ever. I was born a Democrat and will die one.

Retired Air Force woman here and like you never voted for any Republican candidate, ever. As you are, I am sick and tired of being defined by labels.

It's that they push for and implement policies and programs that really hurt people. "Trickle Down" is a joke that pretty much everyone gets now.

They don't need a better way to sell their message, they need a better message. And they can't fix it just by putting a pretty name tag on the same old bullshit they've been peddling for the last 100 years.

Do you honestly think Harry Reed just didn't have a spine when it came to Filibuster reform? Was that why he didn't pull the trigger? Maybe it was so the Repugs could throw a Monkey Wrench in policies they really just tease us with and then throw us a couple of bones to pacify us somewhat. The DOJ not going after Wall Street for the Mortgage fiasco, Obama's DOJ! Just one of many examples! We are being played for chumps and no one wants to even talk about real campaign finance reform. That is the only way to get OUR representative democracy back! Wake up!

has more steam behind it than any real desire to "fix" the party. Using the states they control the GOP is denying anything they can state by state as fast as they can pass the awful laws and abusive legislation. The strategy is to lock control of these states and to create a perfect storm of conflict with federal law, rules and service agency function. In the past Federal financial pressure and aggressive DOJ legal activity was used to bring recalcitrant states to heel. With a "broken" economy as the cover states can refuse federal money and oversight and blame the disaster on the feds who haven't fixed it. In addition many of those damaged by the losses of aid and services are already Democratic voters.

If the DOJ is not going to pursue major economic crime or civil rights cases what incentive do the ALEC led GOP have to actually change for the future? Yes they lost the White House. But they have gained in the state house and governorship columns. As long as the central thrust of the Democrats is "just don't let it get worse" rather than actual progressive change the incentives are weak to actually change the over all GOP structure of power or their functional goals, let alone the corrosive core of Tea party beliefs. A pig wearing an Armani suit is still an over-dressed selfish hog, and just as dangerous on the loose. The republican party on twitter and Facebook is no less gruesome a vision and no more likely to gain future voters.

The Civil Rights movement succeeded because it was understood to be needed by all Americans. Part of that success came about because it was then possible to publicly hold moderately conservative views and belong to the Republican party without being forced to vote only for Right Wing lunatics. The Republican members of congress had political room to advocate for humanist values because they were still elected from the people rather than having full corporate sponsorship. I truly feel sorry for my republican neighbors that they have such awful choices to vote for. They often have no idea how bad those choices are until after the election. They feel trapped into voting for the worst out of a fear that anything else will precipitate moral or financial or political catastrophe. They have no constructive choices left.

The injection of Corporate money has been toxic to both parties. Democratic voters are asked to support a party that now seems progressive only in historical context. The reason for this is obvious but often blurred by a false vision of patriotism. At the same time truth as the basis of political judgement has almost been erased. The reason Senator Warren made so many headlines this week was she was speaking the truth on the record in Congress. That those truths should have been self-evident to anyone in the building regardless of party is sadly overlooked in the press and in the press releases. Corporate owned and generated Newspeak has corroded the connection between real events and real consequences.

this sentence just sums up the whole question for me....

"Of course, many conservatives like their brand just the way it is, regardless of what century it seems to belong to."

Well, that is the standard definition of reactionary, conservatism.

In response to some of the comments above, how can the Republican party survive as a relevant, national party for another decade or longer when its most basic, core beliefs are the basis of its undoing? Sorry folks, but the Religo-Conservative, Republican party is on the long, slow slide to irrelevancy. If they change their message considerably on spending, economics or immigration, the older wing of the party will go somewhere else. If they drop that ole time religion with respect to abortion, womens or LGBT rights, they risk loosing the southern religious block. If they stay just exactly as they are, they hold current voting blocks, but attract few, if any from the upcoming generations, save a few neo-libertarian, nut jobs. Those existing voting blocks aren't attracting new adherents much either and for the same reasons. I mean, how more reactionary can you get than fundamentalist christianity? Over time, they simply die out. They've really painted themselves in quite a corner. I suppose our job is to limit the damage they might cause, as they fade away into history.

Their economic and social attitudes are the real problems.

Young people enjoy equality between loving partners in their relationships.

Most Republicans don't see women as equal to men.

Young people really don't care about skin color or ethnic background.

A good number of Republicans judge people by their skin color and ethnic background.

Republicans tend to believe that the rich are better than the rest of us and should have more say.

Young people can't get jobs in the world the Reagan Republicans constructed.

Republicans should not be blaming their computers. They should be blaming their view of the world.

They keep insisting that on the principles they are on the winning side so they only need to fine tune the messaging. Excuse me, but the message and principles are inseparable so you can't change one without changing the other. Telling was the fact that they never once identified a single principle where voters identified with them. Sure, they have some vague concepts that focus group test fine but those aren't principles. Apple pie is not a principle. Their message is their principle and that is how it should be. What these conservatives seemed to be saying is that forget the principles and make the message what they think the people want to hear. But they already have that somewhat as they have Frank Luntz who famously fine tunes the code words people in focus groups tell them works to keep the base fired up. Maybe they just need to stop trying to be so cute with their message like Romney was when he said that he will never get the 47% that are "takers". And that brings us back to their principles, or lack thereof.

excellent review.

That was one the most interesting, well-written articles on the election that I've read yet.
The reporter gave us great factual information and let his sources frame and tell the story. I was a reporter for a big daily for 10 years, and it was a serious cognitive exercise every day to sythesize information and voices into a coherent piece -- and do it with a metaphorical gun (deadline) to your head. The writer of that piece did it all beautifully. The reader didn't have to work hard to understand some very complex webs of information.
Thanks so much for the link!