>

I used to think there was a disconnect. I don't think there is one.  Their base is okay with setting themselves on fire if it means certain people (anyone who is not them) will get hurt or suffer.
Denying half the population healthcare doesn't seem like a solid platform, worst of luck with that >

They ran on a platform of denying most of the country healthcare before and their efforts would have worked if it wasn't for John McCain. So, don't think it will hurt them as bad as you might think. Once the spin factory gets a hold of it, they will make it seem like women being forced by the government to give birth to their rapist's baby is the only fair and honest thing to do. >

I disagree. Women and young voters punished Republicans pretty badly in this last election. Nothing I’ve seen has shown me that this issue will be going away anytime soon. It’s  one thing to TALK about denying people healthcare, but another thing to do it and shrug as people die. No amount of spin is going to convince the Pro-Choice movement that carrying a rapists baby to term is somehow moral. >

I get what you're saying, but the very first issue the republicans in the house tried discussing was cutting social security.
In some cases, people get well over $1 million dollars in total compensation from medicare/medicaid/social security.
Why any person would vote for that party is totally beyond my comprehension.
From a purely financial perspective, it's completely moronic. It's like voting to set yourself on fire financially.
You would be financially better off taking your money to a casino then being subjected to Republican policy making.
I don't even know how to go about doing something like convincing somebody to vote against their own best interests like that.
You have to give it to the republicans there... They're really, and I mean seriously good at manipulating people into doing things that are an absolutely terrible idea.
There definitely has to be a very major disconnect between their voters and reality.