It's all done for appearances and fundraising. Most of the machinations you're seeing lately by Republicans are; there's no sincere attempt to change the election, or belief that it can be changed.
What you did here, while cute, for the most part is not at all based in reality or fact.
- The GOP is NOT and has never been big tent; there is nothing to debate here.
- The GOP generally does not lack in discipline; if anything, their politicians and most of their constituents immediately fall in line behind current dogma.
Let's stop with the false balance, please; it really has no place here.
The media and many people need to ask, why were the Republicans mocked for having seventeen contenders and no one made hay out of the fact that Democrats only had three
I don't think your reading that correctly. The important point is 'outwardly' and 'well-established Republican media arm'. Overall the Republicans have been vary good about staying on message and even if they don't support a candidate will vary rarely badmouth a fellow republican outside of primary's.
Actually, yes, there seems to be. The Republican political playbook seems to be mostly getting their based riled up about meaningless culture war nonsense. Here they can present themselves as fighting to get lazy liberal remote government workers back to the office rather than wasting tax money at home. It fits right into their style.
I'm not saying individual republicans dont exist (I was one), but the party organization is non existent. In many local races theres not even a republican candidate or if there is, they're off their rocker (in marin, one had a whole section on the dangers of radio waves).
There's been research lately over sctohastic terrorism - we may remember around the time of Gabrielle Giffords' shooting that the GOP were running ad-campaigns with visual imagery of gunsights, imploring their party base to "target" seats up for election. Tasteless at best.
What is a "Republican strategy firm?" A consulting firm with the Republican party as one of their clients? What's the point of making "Republican" so prominent in the article? Is it just to use the negative connotation most WP readers have about the Republican party to malign Facebook a little more? It seems like we're just spectating an op-ed war, and discussing this article as if there's any meaning to it other than to malign Facebook.
There are. There was a lot of Republican activity on the internet during the primaries. However, young Republicans and proprietors of prominent Republican websites were never big McCain fans. And of course, Obama is a pop star. So, Republicans have been silent on the internet of late.
Over the last eight years, many people have soured on the Republican Party because of Bush. Most young Republicans I know despise him. There won't be a lot of energy behind Republican Party candidates again until its leaders support the small-government principles that excite young activists.
I think what people fail to realize is that it's not unpopular enough and not with the right people. For the GOP base, they may disagree wholeheartedly but what are they going to do? Vote for a abortionist gun-grabbing Democrat?
For Dems, the best use of these things is barrage the election cycle with negative news about the GOP. Failed policies, bad ideas, myopic leadership. Bad bad bad bad. Suck the energy right out the way the Clinton investigation did in 2016.
If you check their website, they openly market themselves as primarily existing to serve advertising and PR roles for Republican campaigns. The CEO used to be the digital director for the Romney campaign. It seems reasonable to me to call them a Republican firm.
reply