The Republican Dilemma…..Wall Street vs. Main Street

We’ve all heard comments about what is wrong with the Republican Party: it’s a circular firing squad; there’s an internal fight for the soul of the party, etc.

Republicans have been putting candidates up for national office that are too far right for general election voters for some time and losing elections as a result.  Democrats are happy winning elections they used to lose even as many Americans are increasingly discontent with the direction of the nation.

The Nevada Republican Party Central Committee is not only out of step with general election voters; it is out of step with Republican primary voters as well.  They passed an ill-advised rule allowing them to endorse candidates and in this past Republican primary most of the candidates they endorsed lost!  This is a huge disconnect that only serves to widen the rift in the party.  Party leadership endorsing candidates in a primary just seems wrong.

There are many cross currents that underlie the changes that are emerging within the Republican Party.  This is a very complex subject that can be analyzed a number of ways.  There is the influence of the religious right and/or tea party activists with myriad reasons for their discontent.

One way to look at this confluence of issues is from a jobs and economic perspective.  Much of my writing is on faulty tax and trade policies and their effect on jobs and the economy.  I have framed these problems in many ways including a battle between the competing interests of multi-national corporations, Wall Street and other economic elites versus “Main Street, USA.”  This has led me to believe the internal split in the Republican Party is not over ideology (right vs. far-right) but over the direction of our economy (globalist vs. nationalist).

This year’s Republican primaries provide pundits with additional material about a dysfunctional Republican Party and the reasons for this dysfunction.  I continue to look beyond what is said by pundits or campaigns and try to make sense of the changes that we are witnessing today.

Those familiar with the founding of the Republican Party may recall that the party was founded based on a revolution from the center.  Whigs and Democrats were gridlocked on issues and Americans were unsatisfied with both parties ignoring the needs of the nation.  A few citizens in Ripon, Wisconsin developed a platform that met the needs of the citizens and announced that anyone who would support their platform was welcome in this new party.  Within six years Republicans took over the House, Senate and the Presidency.  What followed were decades of Republican leadership and the most inventive and prosperous years in our history.  Republicans remained the dominant political force by listening to the needs of “We the People.”  Republican leadership ended when the Republican Party shifted its focus away from the needs of the people and onto financial institutions.

I see much the same turmoil today.  Today’s unrest on the left (1%’ers) and right (tea Party) signal discontent and the coming of reform.  The Virginia Republican primary win of Dave Brat over House Majority Leader Cantor is another signal.  Mr. Brat consistently refers to the competing interests of Wall Street and “Main Street, USA.”  He understands what we need to do to create a strong domestic economy and American jobs.  So I see this election outcome slightly different than the pundits.

Rather than a fight between the tea party and establishment, as the media reports, this outcome resulted from voters’ support for Main Street/domestic jobs as opposed to Cantor’s voting record that is closely aligned with the crony capitalist/globalist view.  On this past Fox News Sunday show, George Will referred to Eric Cantor as the nexus between House Republicans and Wall Street.  Reince Priebus called Mr. Brat a main stream, Reagan Republican who happens to be popular with local tea party activists.  This quote from Mr. Brat’s web site is instructive:

“Dave Brat believes that crony capitalism is eroding the public’s trust in government. Dave will vote against bills that benefit big business over small business.”

This statement leads me to believe Mr. Brat recognizes the conflicting interests of the globalists and “Main Street, USA.”  Most tea party candidates ask us to vote for them because they are more conservative, which is a euphemism for “far-right.”  Mr. Brat’s web site tells me he sees our economic problems much as Reagan did.  If this is true, the Republican Party may be better off without Majority Leader Cantor.

As this year’s silly season unfolds look for further evidence that a reformation is underway inside the Republican Party with voters preferring candidates who support focusing on a strong domestic economy and creating jobs.

The Republican Party has always been the party of business.  Since Reagan, globalization of our economy has torn at the fabric of the Republican Party, pitting those who put the domestic economy first against those who put trans-national corporate profits ahead of the national interest.  Until Republicans resolve this conflict, they will remain a minority party while Democrats are happy to legislate and govern.

Every once in a while we see candidates like Dave Brat who can manage these conflicting interests with sound policies that satisfy both factions.  Republican leaders aligning with voters and Main Street would bring back American jobs.  Once they start winning elections again, their minor ideological differences will melt into the background.  The Virginia election is a good start and may finally get the attention of party leaders.

Frank Shannon served in the U.S. Army, was an engineering/operations manager for AT&T for 27 years, was the owner of a small manufacturing business for 23 years, served as Colorado Chair of the Coalition for a Prosperous America and moved to Mesquite in 2013.


  1. Yes, Mr. Shannon, we’ve all HEARD things about our Republican Party, but few take the time to gather facts before opening their cake holes. You simply have no idea what you are talking about when you claim committed, loyal Platform-following candidates lose elections. The facts are that they win them. RINOs cause voters to stay home as they betray the very values of The People that define the party.

    Are you a member of our party? How do you know so much that isn’t so? One loss of our credible, endorsed candidates and you’re ready to throw in the towel and advise others to do the same. Thank God someone with no vision like yourself wasn’t at the first, second, third, etc. defeats of the Continental Army until the ultimate victory that gave birth to America. Had you been in charge, we’d still be a British colony.

    Candidates that take corporate funds gathered by immoral consultants with no party loyalty and then give large portions of those funds back to the fat cat consultants, is the problem with our Republican Party. Perhaps you weren’t aware that those wealthy task masters control our governor? Source: You should review the data on file with the Secretary of State’s office, trace it to the candidates, elected officials and votes against their party platform. Cross reference that with the consultants and such. I think it will become clear that the political consultants that run Democrats in the state also, are simply prostitutes that keep their clothes on. They run the drones with (R) after their name, having never read our Platform (statement of our principles).

    You know, I’m offended that you are a Veteran also. One would think that after serving in the Army, you’d have learned about the almost 1.4 million Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen that have died to found, and keep our nation free. One would think that you would have learned that those sacrifices of blood obligate Americans to try and live an honest life.

    Why then do you harass our party without having a damn clue what we’re about? What meetings have you been at? You only moved to Nevada last year. Perhaps you should close your mouth, attend some meetings, LISTEN, do some investigating of facts and documentation that prove the campaign donations. learn our party platform, you know “The will of The People” before you even think of commenting again?

    Your “history of the Republican Party” is an ignorant joke. Our party was founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. That was in fact an extreme position for the times if you’ll recall. Our founding had nothing to do with empty ethics and selling out your values to the middle.

    The Republican Party was founded on clear values and objectives. In fact, that new party was so extreme, the Southern states threatened to secede from the union if a president was elected by within its nominees. South Carolina did secede in 1860 because of the “radical” (now know as correct, ethical, constitutional, and moral) decision. It could be argued that the very founding of the Republican Party (and codification of her radical positions) should be partially credited with starting our Civil War. And it was for the right reasons, evident only to some then.

    You praise Mr. Brat for his recognition of crony capitalism (a hard target of “right winger” Tea Partiers) yet ridicule others for wanting the same. You write: “voters preferring candidates who support focusing on a strong domestic economy and creating jobs” Have you ever actually read the Platform of the Republican Party? Here you go:

    The real battle within our Republican Party now is between greed derived from crony capitalism, aided by various shades of political corruption, and The Constitution. Tea Partiers, Libertarians, etc., all want the constitutional rights of The People to be protected as personal freedom has proven to be the best fuel to build our nation. Please let me know if you’re interested in ever visiting one of our Nevada Republican Central Committee meetings so you can see some truth and reality. I wish you luck as you endeavor to learn the ACTUAL, FACTUAL origins of the Republican Party. You may realize that doing what is right is never easy, just necessary.

    “The struggle of today, is not altogether for today — it is for a vast future also. With a reliance on Providence, all the more firm and earnest, let us proceed in the great task which events have devolved upon us.”
    — President Abraham Lincoln, December 3, 1861 Message to Congress


    Shawn Meehan
    Proud Member, Nevada Republican Central Committee
    Chairman, Resolutions Committee, 2012, 2014 Nevada Republican Conventions

  2. Frank Shannon says:

    Thank you for your opinions. I am sorry I apparently angered you so.

  3. helen sabin says:

    I find it interesting that the Nevada GOP seems to be receiving the same criticisms as the Colorado GOP is getting currently. Support in Colorado is measured by voter turn out, donations, and the fact that the DEMS are in control in the state/national Senate which says many GOP did NOT get out and vote!
    Members in Colorado do “eat each other” and as a result we lose many elections. The DEMS here get behind ONE candidate and support that one – thus Colorado has turned blue – not red.

    In Nevada, it seems that the unions are the “controlling” factor along with many citizens who seem to be Democratic. How is the GOP going to overcome that?

    I am sorry but I am sick of Harry Reid and in fact can’t stand him but I have to ask, how and why did he get re-elected once again? Where was the GOP in the most recent election? What is WRONG with Nevada that they would elect this ruthless road dirt many times over?

    We are trying to get rid of UDALL in Colorado and have a tough fight on our hands as our GOP seems to have many of the same problems cited by this writer in this article – so how do we solve these problems and take back our country?

  4. Frank Shannon says:

    After Shawn posted his comments to this article, I received several direct emails from personal friends supporting and encouraging me. While this is appreciated, it isn’t necessary. Having served on the Republican Central Committee for 18 years in two states I feel well grounded in stating my opinions about the infighting within the Republican leadership. Having studied the issue of trade policy and its effect on our economy and jobs for over a decade I also feel well grounded in my opinions on that subject as well.

    I am quite used to the anger expressed by Shawn. Having served R Party in Colorado, I experienced first-hand Ron Paul activists taking over leadership positions within the party. Nevadans should be reassured that it only took two years for the Colorado Central Committee to rectify the situation and put adults back in charge. It has been my experience that folks that rant emotionally and name call shouldn’t be given much credibility when trying to have a rational discussion.

    Shawn actually did me a favor by pointing out the deep divide between main stream Republicans (he would say RINO’s) and the extreme right wing of R Party. This validates one of my two points of this article…Republicans are locked in a fight within the party and some would have us believe or want us to believe it is over ideology.

    However, my main point is that I don’t believe the public cares much about ideology and many are leaving R Party as a result of this destructive infighting. The public wants a political system that works, candidates that reflect their views and they are increasingly dissatisfied with both political parties. They want a government they can afford and one that works. They want solutions to the many problems that our nation faces today.

    I contend that with every election cycle there is evidence that the public is growing more frustrated at the gridlock and infighting and is expressing itself in ways that signal they won’t stand for much more of this. I also contend in this article that until we change the dangerous and destructive relationship between and trans-national corporations and the federal government, our nation’s interests are in peril.

    Once upon a time the adage “what is good for General Motors is good for America” was true. After globalizing our economy, corporate profits trump the national interest and this is not necessarily true anymore. Our nation needs government to do its job independent of what globalized corporations want. The Republican Party is the instrument to do this since it has been and remains the party of business.

    Republicans need to decide whether they want to be the party of global corporations out of the American voter’s reach that hide their profits off shore or do they want to support domestic businesses and jobs. Do they want to keep supporting President Obama and the political class in Washington that feeds off of Wall Street and corporate donations. What hangs in the balance is the status quo versus a thriving domestic economy and a growing rather than shrinking middle class not to mention the American Dream for our grandchildren.

  5. Paul Costantino says:

    I applaud Frank Shannon for his views on making the Republican Party inclusive. Shawn Meehan’s anger (especially calling anyone who doesn’t agree with his radical ideas a RINO) is poison that’s making the party less competitive.

  6. Shawn Meehan says:

    Actually, it is RINOs that are killing the party. The facts back this up. Talk to former Republicans and you’ll see clearly that the constant lack of values and adherence to the principles of the Party is why people leave.

    I notice that Frank immediately knee jerks to blame things on “Ron Paul” folks. I never was one of his supporters. I got into this for fairness.

    Frank fails to address the REAL issues. America is going bankrupt because “Republicans” continue to violate party principles and compromise with Dems to increase the debt. Just how long must this compromise go on for? When will we get movement in the Conservative direction? Frank fails to address the corruption at the hands of the consultants. I posted documentation as to how they corrupt our governor. The ignoring of that is revealing.

    Frank did not challenge my challenge of his errant, revisionist history of the Republican Party. Rather, he ignores facts and continues his uninformed elitist narrative. Hmmm, but no chance that attitude is why people are leaving the Party huh? He makes NO comment on my referring him to the Nevada Republican Platform that documents the will of the People of The Party specifically in agreement on business issues he stated. Hmmmmm.

    This is all about the Establishment loving their power. I almost got throw out of my county central committee after meeting the governor’s chief of staff, because we formed a committee that was going to publish legislative details to, and foster activism with the public. They tried to silence me and violated a lot of rules. The same thing is going on now in Clark County.

    It is also instructive that responses focus only on my justified anger rather than any of the issues. If a party of people gather in their precincts and develop the party platform all the way to the state level and then their elected officials continually violate that platform, your party stands for nothing. NOTHING. THAT is why people are leaving. Just ask them.

    The real choice is Americans needing to decide if The Constitution is important as well as freedom or more corporatism led by the Establishment, accompanies with more debt, and the eventual end of America.

    And Frank claiming to get lots of supportive emails after my response is suspect. Why did those people not post here? I can claim lots of emails also. Puleese.

    Frank, allow me to share: Your mentioning of my “anger” is a childish deflection of the issues. Emotion isn’t debate. When you respond but fail to address any factual points asserted, it shows you are just an organ grinder intent on pumping out your message. That is not debate and you lose.

  7. Shawn Meehan says:


    I suggest you check the facts. Republicans for Reid is what got Harry Reid elected again rather than the legally, democratically chosen Republican nominee.

    Why is it that the Establishment insists that everyone else unite with their annointed choices, but they refuse to unite with the will of the people, and in FACT, organize and spend money against those choices?

    FOLLOW THE MONEY. R&R Partners, November Inc. These are not just political consultants. They are king makers that run this state. They run Democrats too.

    YUP, they built REPUBICANS for Reid. So, where is that party unity they claim to want? They are wrong. They are the hypocrites. And, if Frank had been in Nevada for more than a year and actually knew or gave any of our state party officers a chance to comment fairly for his article, he would know that. Otherwise, he is just another loud mouth, no-information voter. I do not care what party of another state he was in. He simply does not know the FACTS in Nevada.

    Once again, look at the FACTS of all these “Republicans” that yack about unity but are traitorous:

    Oh, I see, Ron Paul is the problem. Pure B.S.!

  8. Jim DeGraffenreid says:

    To answer Helen Sabin’s question on the re-election of Harry Reid, he was re-elected because a Tea Party candidate won the primary election, and the consultants and political power brokers then did everything they could to make sure that Reid was elected. This was despite the best efforts of the state Republican party chairman, now Congressman, Mark Amodei to unite Republicans behind our nominee. The consultants and power brokers calculated that Reid would be better for their personal interests than the Republican candidate, and they formed an organization called “Republicans for Reid”, consisting of 400 prominent establishment Republicans. Much like Colorado, Nevada is a conservative state with a single large liberal city, and in that landscape the existence of this group allowed the Reid campaign to advertise heavily that “even Republicans prefer Harry Reid”, and this message was sufficient to swing the necessary 3% of the voters to his side. Of course, Republicans didn’t “prefer” Harry Reid – he pulled maybe 21,000 votes to his side with those ads, and the Republican nominee received over 321,000 votes statewide, but it was enough.

    In the current election, we have some of these same Republicans for Reid actively supporting the current Democrat Secretary of State (who is running for Attorney General in order to better position himself for an eventual run for Governor) over our Republican nominee for Attorney General. This is again a political calculation by Dema Guinn and Dale Raggio that their personal interests will be better served by the Democrat candidate, rather than their own nominee.

    These kinds of self serving political games cause voters to leave the Republican party more than anything else. Republican voters want strong candidates that can win elections, and once they win, advocate for Republican principles of smaller, less intrusive government. They are not looking for candidates who want to get elected only to assist the Democrats with their agenda in the name of “making progress” or “breaking gridlock”. Republican candidates would do well to take a page from Governor Scott Walker’s book – he did not compromise on the conservative principles that were the best for residents of his state, and has been able to do good things for Wisconsin after surviving a recall effort with more votes than he received in his original election. That should be our ideal – not the “”Republicans” for Reid”.

  9. Harry Hicks says:

    I enjoyed Franks article as it gave me something to think about. Mr. Meehans reply reminded me of a teen age girls tantrum because she can’t have her way.

  10. David Nelson says:

    I have to agree with Frank Shannon, Shawn’s approach in general hurts the Republican cause rather then helps. He does tend to go off the deep end.

    I would like to address the issue of how Harry Reid was once again re-elected to the Senate in Nevada in 2010.

    There was a pretty fierce battle between the candidates in the Republican Primary. Sharron Angle came out the winner to face Harry in the general election. She did not win the primary by a large margin and was definitely the most conservative of the people running. I supported Sharron strongly throughout the primary and was happy she won. Sharron did a good job in the general election and did quite well up to the final results. She was ahead in most polls by a few points but within the margin of error. The day of the election the Reid machine went into their full court press and the unions in Las Vegas who are big supporters of Reid bused their members to the polls, It was a classic get out the vote move that Republicans have for years failed to understand.

    Angle lost to Reid by about 5 points. Many establishment Republicans, the Carl Roves of the world want to say that Angle lost because she was too conservative. It didn’t help that many relatively known moderate Republicans in Reno, Las Vegas and other communities actually endorsed Reid over Angle. My final point is that the margin of win for Reid in 2010 was smaller than the the win by Obama over Romney in Nevada. Romney is a much more moderate Republican than Angle. Being a real conservative doesn’t hurt your chances of winning in Nevada.

    I will always support the most conservative candidate who has a chance to win. Sharron Angle had a very good chance to win. It was not a presidential year so it took a lot of effort on the part of Reid to get the party faithful out to vote and they did that. The Republicans in contrast failed to really support our primary winner the way they should have and she lost. If the turn out for the election had really had the party behind her, I truly believe that Harry Reid would not be our Senator today.

    The in fighting needs to stop. I didn’t feel there was any thing, that negative, that Frank Shannon originally wrote. I personally believe that Shawn should apologize for his unneeded attack. Shawn has a little problem with ethics and he often let’s his personal sense of right and wrong get the better of him.

    • Shawn Meehan says:

      Dave, are you kidding me? Please refute my asserted facts. When you focus on commentary on emotion, your argument is empty. Yes the unions bussed some folks to the poles but that did not make up the difference in vote swing. Republicans for Reid did that.

      Please explain my “problem with ethics.” That is a personal attack without foundation and by definition, a slander. Great strategy to unite folks.

  11. James Smack says:


    I won’t express anger directly, as I fully believe you are entitled to your opinion, but I would like to correct the record a little bit on your statements.

    First of all, Nevada is by no means the only state to endorse candidates pre-primary. Utah and Massachusetts have an endorsing process that can and has eliminated the primary process altogether in some years (ex. Senator Mike Lee). Nevada’s is simply an opinion of the delegates from across the state providing recommendations. It does not keep the monied, power broking interests from throwing a boat load of money at the primary and winning that way.

    Secondly, last time I checked, five of the six candidates endorsed for statewide office actually WON or did not have a primary. Brian Sandoval was endorsed for Governor and won, Ron Knecht was endorsed for Controller and won, Adam Laxalt for AG, Barbara Cegavske for Sec State and Dan Schwartz for Treasurer all did not have a primary, but were endorsed overwhelmingly. Does not look like a losing record to me. Also, Dr. Annette Teijiero was endorsed in CD1 and won the primary, with Rep. Mark Amodei and Rep. Joe Heck being endorsed with no primary. That adds up to 3 out of 4 in congressional endorsements, I will take winning 75% of the time for my beloved Tampa Bay Bucs this season without hesitation!! Even excluding those who had no primary, the state party was 2 out of 3 in the statewide races and 1 for 2 in the congressional races. So, I discount your analysis that “most of the state party candidates lost”.

    Also, from the North, most of the endorsed candidates WON or had no primary. Winners included Jill Dickman in AD31, Robin Titus in AD38, and Jim Wheeler in AD39. Lisa Krasner in AD26 made it to a run off, so she has neither won nor lost yet, but the endorsement may have helped her make the general election. Perhaps the process did not work as well in Clark County, but I would be more appalled by the fact that Clark County could only account for half of the delegates at the convention when it was in Las Vegas. Clark County had openings for nearly 2000 delegates, and only about 200 showed up. Pithetic.

    Do I think our endorsement process as a state party needs improvement? Absolutely, and I have thoughts I have shared with state party leadership in this regard. My bigger issue is why the governor and many of our Republican candidates do not choose to support the state party. Just because they do not choose to do the work requred to change the leadership of the party if it is not to their liking does not make it a good idea to turn their back on the activists. The activists that run the party now worked to get there county by county, and when the establishment lost control of the party, instead of working with the leadership (who, last time I checked, were also Republicans) they chose to cut and run. I don’t see this in many other states, and I have had a better opportunity than most to talk to other state chairmen, including Ryan Call in your home state of Colorado.

    Turning a back on the grassroots had much to do with why Eric Cantor lost. It will not hurt Governor Sandoval in this race, but if he chooses to wade into a race with Harry Reid in two years, it will be interesting to see how that plays. Only time will tell.

    James Smack
    Retired Republican National Committeeman – Nevada

  12. Frank Shannon says:


    Thank you for some clarification on Nevada results. Having lived here a short time I am eager to learn more about Nevada from the inside..

    I just want to mention why I support more main stream candidates like Sandoval and Romney. It seems, from empirical evidence, that when the extreme wing of R party selects our candidate, we lose and end up with a Democrat. That was certainly true in Colorado and seems so in most of the nation. My primary rule in politics is to win and to win our candidates need to reflect the general election voter enough to win. I believe, Colorado, Nevada and national voters remain right of center voters but they will not support far-right candidates. The country is in better hands with Republican leadership but if we continue to lose because our candidates are too far-right Democrats are happy to keep winning and governing.

    Again, thanks for your lucid comments.


  13. Frank Shannon says:

    Now that we have illustrated my minor point of this article, the infighting within the Republican Party, and beat this subject to death, what about the main point of my article?:

    Globalizing the American economy has split the interests of Republican leadership between global financial interests and domestic/national interests? Shouldn’t corporations of all stripes serve their stakeholders and the federal government only serve the interests of citizens of the U.S?

    Corporations will and should always serve their stakeholders. However, our federal government should be directed only by the national interest. Now that large, former American-based corporations have moved most of their operations off shore and keep their profits there to avoid U.S. taxes, I suggest that decoupling these two interests would serve all of us better. I also suggest it is up to Republicans to lead on this issue.

    What do you think?

  14. Jim DeGraffenreid says:

    I’m always a little puzzled when Romney is used as an example of winning elections by nominating moderate candidates, when he’s actually the single best recent example of the problem with moderate candidates. Because moderate candidates aren’t likely to accomplish anything for conservatives, it’s extremely difficult to motivate people to go vote for them. I was very involved in efforts to identify and turn out voters for Romney in northern NV in 2012, and it was a tough sell, even after four years of Obama’s destructiveness. In the end, even though it should have been clear that Romney was a better choice than Obama, nearly 3 million people that voted for McCain simply stayed home and didn’t vote for Romney.

  15. Shawn Meehan says:

    In response to James you wrote: Having lived here a short time I am eager to learn more about Nevada from the inside..

    Yet, in the original article you write: “The Nevada Republican Party Central Committee is not only out of step with general election voters; it is out of step with Republican primary voters as well. They passed an ill-advised rule allowing them to endorse candidates and in this past Republican primary most of the candidates they endorsed lost! This is a huge disconnect that only serves to widen the rift in the party.”

    Why do you continue to illustrate your insincerity or lack of fully embracing the topic? Your article begins with a bunch of uninformed, divisive comments about what our party does. You’ve been here less than a year and you simply are in no position to comment. Then, wait for it, when your thesis are challenged, you ignore the challenge and then alter your response, portraying the victim and pretending to be here to learn. Your article begins with an uninformed and invalid conclusion. Let me help you. LISTENING and asking questions is what someone eager to learn does, not posting uninformed statements as you have.

    You pretend to be some moderate impartial referee labeling my documented challenges as emotion while ignoring the passionate assertions made. You still have no answers. Yet, this “fair” person that wants to “learn from the inside” ignores David Nelsons libel against my ethics absent any proof. This publication also aided that Libel as they have a content moderation feature meaning human intervention was required to effect the live posting of the comments from Mr. Nelson.

    Please tell me how you are the fair, informed, and dispassionate one again. Really, please do. Then would you answer the challenges offered.

    You might also want to check the data. Your convoluted international versus domestic corporatism explanation is far down the list of concerns. In fact, a scientific analysis done titled, “Switching Behavior” by The Frontier Lab, dated July 1, 2013 concludes as to the legitimate reasons why people leave the Republican Party, hence, our most glaring problems, to wit:

    The application of this research methodology reveals implications for political scientists examining the landscape of Republican disaffiliation. By backwardly modeling the sequence of indicators we can understand how individuals decided to disaffiliate while removing some of the limitations, such as relying on the interpretation of individuals as to why they made decisions, of conventional market research.

    The resulting patterns, consolidated into four core insights, reveal that disaffiliation from the Republican label is not only, or even primarily, a matter of philosophical differences. Rather, the perception of former Republican adherents that their party has personally attacked them, continued to present choices as a “lesser of two evils,” select candidates and principles unpalatable to voters to the point where they retain “no hope,” and failed to provide the sense of community that other outlets like talk radio and the Tea Party provide, reveal that ideology takes a back burner to what is essentially a hollow brand for those disaffiliating.”

    I look forward to the rare possibility that you will comment on matters of substance asserted against your thesis. That of course is what folks truly interested in “learning about Nevada from the inside” would do.

    Oh yeah, I’m also awaiting your response to my correcting of your gross misstatement as to the founding of the Republican Party. You can’t even bring yourself to simply write “you’re wrong.” Ignoring the issues offered signals correctness in them and a lack of an ability to challenge them I would think.

    And please, let us stop the soap opera commentary on my aggressive style. I’m not harassing you, or being part of the problem. In fact, I’m pressing you for an answer. You have offered yourself up on the Internet to the world as someone informed on the subject of the article. Do you also hold out yourself as someone that wishes to only parrot themselves and ignore criticism? That is an interesting way to “learn about Nevada from the inside.”

Speak Your Mind