Yes Hillary was Arrogant and so was I.

I should have seen this coming, the signs were there but I chose to ignore them and now I have been proven spectacularly wrong.

A few months ago, during the primary I was at work, working with a young white millennial woman.  This girl is a wonderful person, intelligent, hard working compassionate, everything I want to see in a young person.  She will go far and I wish the best for her.  Out of the blue she brought up a joke about Hillary and Bernie, the premise of which is that Bernie would stop for a person in need but Hillary would not.   The impact of that joke did not hit me until that night. How I wondered, could someone look at Mrs. Clinton, at everything she has done, and all that she has stood for, and assume that she would not stop to help a person in need?

I should have known then, that my thoughts that women would support Hillary, not just because she was a woman, but because she was intelligent, well qualified and frankly whatever you what to say about her, a decent person, especially when she was up against Donald Trump were wrong.  I never would never imagined in my wildest dreams that 53% of white women would vote for Donald Trump over Hillary but I should have known...yes that was me being arrogant.

I suspected that many Millennials and blacks might either not vote for her in as high numbers as for Obama, the former because of their dislike of her, the latter partly because of the gutting of the laws that prevented suppression of the black vote and partly for the younger black and hispanic male voters,  and their dislike of her.  But I really thought that that would be made up by the white women who might vote for her...boy was I wrong.  How arrogant of me.  In conversations, they were telling me that they were not going to, and I didn't listen.   When people tell you who they are...listen.

The truth is that the white vote did not go for Obama, either time these are the results from 2008 and he lost white women, then and in 2012 it was the same story.

2008		Group	Obama	McCain
All Voters		Pct.	53%	45%
SEX	Men	47	49	48
Women		53	56	43
RACE	White	74	43	55
African-American		13	95	4
Hispanic		9	67	31
Asian		2	62	35
Other		3	66	31

Here are the results in 2012

2012		Group	Obama	Romney
All Voters		Pct.	51%	47%
SEX	Men	47	45	52
Women		53	55	44
RACE	White	72	39	59
African-American		13	93	6
Hispanic		10	71	27
Asian		3	73	26
Other		2	58	38

White people were moving away from Obama, and it should not have been a surprise that they did not move towards Hillary.  Frankly this election to me seems less of a change election and more an election for the return to the status quo.  People were tired of change, because the change was making them uncomfortable, they wanted to go back to seeing a white male president and that is what they voted for. Obama's presidency reminded them every day that their numbers are no longer in their favor, they did not vote for him, and they resented those that did.

But to try to explain the election that simply is frankly too simple. There was more going on.  One of the things that I noted as Hillary ran, was that people called her a 'flawed' candidate, I find that term interesting.  I don't think I have ever heard that of another candidate, other candidates do things that are wrong (the list that Trump did could fill a swimming pool), but Hillary as a person, WAS wrong, was flawed.  The media and those that don't like her keep pointing to things she did that made her flawed, but don't seem to think that the same things her husband did, or that Trump did make them flawed.  

Hillary's problem was that she was arrogant.  Her flaw was that she was a woman.  Because if you look at it objectively, if none of the men who did worse things than she did were flawed, then her real flaw has to be her gender.  She was arrogant to think that she could do things that men did and get away with it.  Frankly, as I look back, I am actually surprised at what a good candidate she was, how honest she was, and how hard she worked.  That is what I took away from the wikileaks.  But she was a deal maker and the same things that would never have touched a male candidate, ended up being her downfall.

She was not young, she was not pretty, she was a moderate, she was thoughtful, she was an introvert, she was intelligent, and she was unbreakable.  She was everything that American loves in men, but has real issues with in women.  As someone said... "now she can go and be a good Grandmother"...which is what older women like her should be doing.. not running a country.  

I have to admit that the release of her emails (which troubles me on a visceral level as it was due to Russian intervention, and that the Russians successfully interfered in an American election), reminded me of the public shaming that has happened to other women, that men see as having overstepped their roles.  What happens to them is that someone hacks their emails, and shames them by releasing all their private information, for the world to see.  

Pretty much like what happened to Lady Godiva.

Hillary like me thought that we were better than we actually are, and rather than looking away, we all looked and relished at her nakedness.  

My final note is the betrayal this election of black women, by white women (as a voting block).  Black women were Hillary's most loyal voting block and most white women basically F@#$Ked them over as they tried to elect one of them as president.  I am sorry but there is no other way to say this.  Because while some white women will come to regret this (and they will), the brunt of what has happened will fall on black women and their families.  On hispanic women and their families.  That I find to be so very sad especially for those young women who think that older women should not be in positions of power...just remember that one day, you will be an older woman.  But if you find yourself more comfortable with a Melania Trump, and even a Michelle Obama (who made sure she was never really threatening as a powerful woman), than Hillary, then you really need to be honest with yourselves about why that is.  Michelle you love, perhaps because she has made it clear, she has no interest in politics or running for president.  She was smart, she learned what happens to first ladies, that presume to be more than just first ladies by watching Hillary Clinton.

So yes, Hillary and I were wrong.  We thought that America, was better than this, and would not reward bad behavior, but we did.  Not because we wanted change, but because we wanted this change to stop.  We wanted things to go back to being familiar.   

I hope that we were wrong about Republicans and Donald Trump.  I hope that the Republicans understand that they can't blame anyone for their failures.  That they can do so much better by focusing on things that will help everyone, rather than those things that divide everyone.  But I don't hold out much hope.  They know they only have 2 years to get things done, unless something dramatic like 911 happens, they will lose the congress. So they will try to pass all those things that they know they won't be able to pass with divided congress.  

But I will wait and see, what they chose to do, I will do what they were not prepared to do with Hillary Clinton, I will give them a chance. 

Ebola's Bark is worse than it's Bite (At least for those in developed countries)

Many years ago I remember reading about Ebola, it scared me more than I can say.  A disease that is incurable, highly infectious (a single virus can cause disease) and that kills people by liquefying their internal organs.  The disease still scares me, I would rather not get it, but I now know more about it and I can think about it more rationally.

Ebola is very scary, I have nothing but admiration for the health care workers who put their lives on the line each time they work with patients who have or might have the disease.  This is especially true in developing countries many of which simply don't have the resources to keep these workers safe and yet these people still go to work to care for others.   I also respect the others who do the testing to confirm these cases, again a rather dangerous job.

Ebola is scary, but the people who are getting sick and dying are those in Africa who don't have the resources or the healthcare infrastructure that is present here in the US.  It is those people who should really be scared.  Those of us in developed countries really have very little to fear.  Unless you are caring for or in close contact with a symptomatic Ebola patient or their bodily fluids, you won't get it.  The disease is just not that contagious (easily transmitted from person to person).  Even if you do get it and you live in a western country, your chances of survival are much greater than if you are living in a third world country.

My purpose here is to give people the tools (facts) that can help them understand this disease, understand the risks and move from fear to compassion that comes from understanding.   I am going to provide a number of links, I am not a doctor, nor an Ebola researcher so I would rather point you in the right direction rather than giving out the information myself

What is Ebola? 

Ebola, previously known as Ebola hemorrhagic fever, is a rare and deadly disease caused by infection with one of the Ebola virus strains. Ebola can cause disease in humans and nonhuman primates (monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzees).

Ebola is caused by infection with a virus of the family Filoviridae, genus Ebolavirus. There are five identified Ebola virus species, four of which are known to cause disease in humans: Ebola virus (Zaire ebolavirus); Sudan virus (Sudan ebolavirus); Taï Forest virus (Taï Forest ebolavirus, formerly Côte d’Ivoire ebolavirus); and Bundibugyo virus (Bundibugyo ebolavirus). The fifth, Reston virus (Reston ebolavirus), has caused disease in nonhuman primates, but not in humans.

Ebola viruses are found in several African countries. Ebola was first discovered in 1976 near the Ebola River in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Since then, outbreaks have appeared sporadically in Africa.

The natural reservoir host of Ebola virus remains unknown. However, on the basis of evidence and the nature of similar viruses, researchers believe that the virus is animal-borne and that bats are the most likely reservoir. Four of the five virus strains occur in an animal host native to Africa. (From the CDC, About Ebola Virus Disease) 

Where did it come from?

While we don't know for sure exactly where it came from the article "'In 1976 I discovered Ebola - now I fear an unimaginable tragedy'"  Gives an interesting angle and perspective to the history of Ebola.  For more information: Outbreaks Chronology: Ebola Virus Disease; An Introduction to Ebola: The Virus and the Disease

Disease information (from the CDC: Signs and Symptoms)

Symptoms of Ebola include

• Fever (greater than 38.6°C or 101.5°F)
• Severe headache
• Muscle pain
• Weakness
• Diarrhea
• Vomiting
• Abdominal (stomach) pain
• Unexplained hemorrhage (bleeding or bruising)

Symptoms may appear anywhere from 2 to 21 days after exposure to Ebola, but the average is 8 to 10 days.
Recovery from Ebola depends on good supportive clinical care and the patient’s immune response. People who recover from Ebola infection develop antibodies that last for at least 10 years.

Transmission (from the CDC: Transmission)

Because the natural reservoir host of Ebola viruses has not yet been identified, the manner in which the virus first appears in a human at the start of an outbreak is unknown. However, researchers believe that the first patient becomes infected through contact with an infected animal.
When an infection does occur in humans, the virus can be spread in several ways to others. Ebola is spread through direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes in, for example, the eyes, nose, or mouth) with

• blood or body fluids (including but not limited to urine, saliva, sweat, feces, vomit, breast milk, and semen) of a person who is sick with Ebola
• objects (like needles and syringes) that have been contaminated with the virus
• infected animals
• Ebola is not spread through the air or by water, or in general, by food. However, in Africa, Ebola may be spread as a result of handling bushmeat (wild animals hunted for food) and contact with infected bats. There is no evidence that mosquitos or other insects can transmit Ebola virus. Only mammals (for example, humans, bats, monkeys, and apes) have shown the ability to become infected with and spread Ebola virus.

Healthcare providers caring for Ebola patients and the family and friends in close contact with Ebola patients are at the highest risk of getting sick because they may come in contact with infected blood or body fluids of sick patients.
During outbreaks of Ebola, the disease can spread quickly within healthcare settings (such as a clinic or hospital). Exposure to Ebola can occur in healthcare settings where hospital staff are not wearing appropriate protective equipment, including masks, gowns, and gloves and eye protection.
Dedicated medical equipment (preferable disposable, when possible) should be used by healthcare personnel providing patient care. Proper cleaning and disposal of instruments, such as needles and syringes, is also important. If instruments are not disposable, they must be sterilized before being used again. Without adequate sterilization of the instruments, virus transmission can continue and amplify an outbreak.
Once someone recovers from Ebola, they can no longer spread the virus. However, Ebola virus has been found in semen for up to 3 months. People who recover from Ebola are advised to abstain from sex or use condoms for 3 months.

 Other information regarding the disease:

WHO information regarding Ebola much like the CDC information page on the disease, but with more links to research and worldwide prevention measures.

Case counts in the West African Outbreak 2014 (can link to info about other outbreaks from here)

Visual of the spread of Ebola

Great set of articles from the BBC regarding the West African Outbreak of 2014, they describe the treatment centers, have stories from survivors and descriptions of the disease, how to protect yourself etc.

It really does not seem that Airport Screening will have much effect other than inconveniencing travelers from those countries:

Ebola Guidance for Airlines | Quarantine | CDC
www.cdc.gov/.../air...

United States Centers for Disease Control and Preve...
Oct 2, 2014 - Interim Guidance about Ebola Infection for Airline Crews, Cleaning ... This rule applies to all flights of U.S. airlines, and to direct flights (no ...
WHO | WHO: Air travel is low-risk for Ebola transmission
www.who.int/mediacentre/.../ebola-travel/en/

World Health Organization
Aug 14, 2014 - WHO today reiterated its position that the risk of transmission of Ebola virus disease during air travel remains low.
WHO | West Africa - Ebola virus disease
www.who.int/ith/updates/20140421/en/

World Health Organization
Apr 21, 2014 - 2014 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa. Travel and transport risk assessment: Recommendations for public health .... procedures recommended by the International Air Transport Association (IATA):.
What is the risk of catching Ebola on a plane? - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2014/07/31/travel/ebola-planes-air-travel/

CNN
Jul 31, 2014 - Deadly diseases like Ebola are only a plane ride away. In today's interconnected world, linked by transoceanic flights, one infected person can ...

Confessions of a Happy Single

As I put on my PJs I looked at myself and sighed then shrugged, I was warm, who cares how I look?.  This is one of the many advantages of being single, and no I am not bashing couplehood, it is just that you don't often remember that there are distinct advantages to being single, just like there are to being part of a couple.

The reason I sighed is that I am wearing something that no other human being will ever see me in.  Even if I was in a relationship with the most loving and understanding man ever, who accepted me unconditionally, I would never, ever, ever wear what I am wearing in his presence.  I would be wearing something less comfortable, and not nearly as warm because what I am wearing is a nice, warm, fluffy, comfortable pink Hello Kitty PJ with attached feet.  It was the only one in my size of this design, and even single nothing would induce me to wear a similar one in darker colors with little bunnies or racoons on the feet.

I wonder, am I the only single that owns and wears clothing that they would never wear in the presence of another living being?  Singles do you have a confession to make about a garment in your wardrobe that you would rather die, than be seen wearing?

I just have to hope that I don't die in my sleep while wearing this thing...

What Exactly is Radical Islam?

If you came to this post looking for a description of Radical Islam, I apologize because that is not the purpose of this post.   The purpose of this post is to wonder why the Media, Terrorism experts, law enforcement and politicians love to use that term.  I would be less puzzled if they used similar terms when talking about other wackos like the members of the Westboro baptist church.  Yet I never hear them being referred to as radicalized Christians.

I have not heard that term used for the Norway attacker, nor for Timothy McVeigh.  In neither case was their religion brought into question, nor was there any determination to go into churches and see if anything there was radicalizing them. 

For example according to this article (http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15532).

"There is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh was deeply influenced by the Christian Identity movement. Christian Identity is a profoundly racist and theocratic form of faith that developed in the late 1970s and spread like wildfire through rural communities throughout the U.S. in the 1980s."

So why is the religious angle important ONLY when the suspects/perps are from Islam or from another non Christian religion?  

What exactly is so different about an Islamist radical, a Hindu radical, a Christian radical or for that matter a secular one?  It really does not matter where they got their beliefs from what matters is what they did with them.

If you think about it the Boston attacks killed fewer people (although the injuries were greater in number) than the Newtown shootings, the Aurora shootings, or even the 2011 Tucson killings, these were all white males and none of them were Muslim.  

I think that we should lump all these people under the same term, either you call them all terrorists, or you call them all extremists, or fanatics.  But to single out a religion in one situation, but not in all of them, to me seems rather bigoted.

If anything the Boston attacks show exactly why racial profiling makes no sense, these criminals can be anyone, and can look like anyone. 

Walking with the Dinosaurs

There are days when you move off the beaten track, sometimes the result is amazing, sometimes horrible and other times you hardly notice the difference.  Today was one of those days for me.

I had figured that today would be a lost day, I had to take my car in for what I thought were repairs that would take some time and would be expensive, as I could not get an appointment earlier than noon I figured my day was shot.  So I admit that when I set off towards some fast food restaurants to get food after I dropped off my car I was not in the best of moods.

As I was walking a well dressed, elderly gentleman stopped me.  I could tell from his face that at some point in his life he had suffered a sever and disfiguring injury which appeared to have left him partially blind and made it hard for him to talk.  He asked me were a particular street was I told him I did not know, which was true.  He then asked me if I had 50 cents to spare for a bus token, I told him I did not have any which was not true.

I did not get far before guilt set in, what was 50 cents after all, I looked back and noticed that he was walking slowly with a limp and leaning heavily on a walking stick.  It did not take much time for me to catch up with him and press a dollar into his hand.  He seemed genuinely grateful and thanked me.

I kept walking towards an intersection, when I got to it I noticed a police car stopped waiting for the light to turn, the light had just turned green for him, yet he reversed a little and waved me past (there was nobody else in the intersection with him).  I was a little surprised but waved my thanks and crossed.  I now had to cross a wider road, but a similar thing happened, before the light turned for me, the only car in the intersection that had right of way over me, waved me across.

You have to understand, I live in Connecticut, the citizens of this state have many positive qualities, random acts of kindness (in my experience) are not unfortunately among them.  That this would happen twice in the span of a few minutes was rather surprising to me.  My surprise continued when as I finally reached my destination as I was heading towards the door a gentleman rushed to the door (not to go through it before me as was typical) but to open it asking "can I carry your bag for you?".  I was so surprised I nearly dropped said bag which contained my work computer.

Perhaps it was all a coincidence, very likely had I not given the person the money, perhaps all of this would have happened anyway.  Or perhaps all these people had seen that I had given the money and for that reason were more kindly disposed towards me.  I don't know and to be honest I don't care, it just felt nice.

I drove a couple of hours into Massachusetts to do some shopping at one of my favorite stores, on the way home I decided to go straight rather than take the turn off towards the highway.  I figured I would drive for a while and then turn around and go home.  It turns out that the road I was on actually ran alongside the highway heading south, the direction I was headed in but was a much more picturesque and pleasant drive.

On the way I passed a sign that said "Dinosaur Tracks", I had the time so I made a U-turn and went back to the area.  It was a tiny park near the river and close to the wall that supported the road was a flat rock surface on which were clearly visible several Dinosaur tracks.  It was one of those small mind blowing experiences where suddenly either the vastness of nature of the immenseness of time and the universe are right there for you to touch and feel.  As I looked down at the tracks made millions of years ago by something that had stood in the same place I was now standing I felt a sense of awe and timelessness.

Because these tracks were just there, out in the open as if they had been made a few months ago, and not behind glass, or in a museum somewhere, the feeling was much stronger and personal.  I was in essence 'walking with the dinosaurs'.

Sometimes moving off the beaten track has resulted in me getting lost, or being disappointed in what I found, or wasting time.  Today it was wonderful experience that reminded me of my more giving side, the kindness of others and the vastness of time.  Not bad for a day that I had written off as a 'lost' day :)

Anyhow, after that I kept on driving, ended up driving through a small town, finding a beautiful old warehouse that I took pictures of just before getting back on the highway much closer to home than I thought I would be.

The Perception of Racism

Most of us at some time or other will feel that others are viewing us differently, often negatively because of some visible factor such as race, gender, national origin, disability, looks, weight and dress (indicating class).  Sometimes it will be because they have found something out about is such as our sexual orientation, religion, or national origin. 

For some this feeling will come more often than it will for others, depending on what community they live in and in what way they are seen as different.   The more often the feeling and the more visible the difference the harder it is sometimes to know if someone is treating you differently because of that (your race, gender, class etc), or because of something else (they are having a bad day, they are unpleasant to everyone, they just don't like you or you did something to offend them).

I am currently living in New England and often find myself the only black female (often the only black person) in social situations.  What made me think about this today are three separate recent situations where I was either the only black person present or the only black female present and the interactions I had with the people that were present.

I will just tell the stories the way I saw them and leave you to decide for yourselves what to take from them if anything.  In the first situation I was taking a continuing education course, it lasted for three days.  I got to the first class early, although because I had registered for the class late, I was not on the roster for the first day, but the same was true of others in that class.  The people in the class were friendly and courteous. 

One thing I did notice with the instructor was that when he was discussing the photo's taken by the men in the class his comments were very positive even when he critiqued the pictures, but when it came to the women his comments were much more negative in general.  As this was directed to other women, I did not feel that they were racially motivated although the question about sexism does arise.

In the second situation I was taking a one time meditation course, I arrived a little late, but the class had not started, (after a few mins, as I was close to it and there was noise from another class, I closed the door and based on the reaction and the comments of the instructor I could tell that she would have wanted me to wait. 

My name was not on the registration and she told me to write down my phone number and address, I understand why, but she could have handled the situation with a little more discretion by saying for example "If your name is not on the list, please write your phone and address next to your name"

As the class went on it became clear that her interactions with me were much less positive than with the other women (I was the only black person in that class, the class and instructor were all female), it was so blatant that I did something uncharacteristic I challenged her about it.  She did not take to that too kindly either. 

It is hard to know if it was simply that I was late, closed the door and was not in the register for the class that led to the negative interactions, if for some reason she just did not like me, or if it was because I was black, or any combination of the above.

In the last situation I was taking a meditation class, I arrived early.  I could tell from the reaction of the two women, the one running the class and the one hosting it that they were probably not used to seeing black women in that class.  They were over friendly and over concerned about being nice (compared to the way the treated the other people in the class), this over solicitous behavior was later extended to the black man that came in with his white wife, though not to his wife.  She hugged him once or twice before he left and hugged me at least three times before I left.  She often stood close to me and made a point of remembering my name and asking me how I felt.  While this behavior tends to make me a little uncomfortable (I am an introvert), I don't really mind it, I know it is just a way to try and make sure they are being inclusive if there has not been much interaction with people who are not white. 

The only negative note to that situation was the store keeper who at one point asked me if I worked.  I am not over 60, I am not a teen, I clearly don't have small children and am not married, so I am not exactly sure why she would have asked if I worked, the assumption should have been that I did work.  Again, was that a racially driven question or not?

The truth is that even if some of those behaviors were motivated by racism and sexism, the people themselves would probably have been horrified if anyone suggested they were either racist or sexist.  These are clearly well educated liberals living in the north.  However, their lack of interaction with people of color might have had some effect on the way the behaved towards me. 

But then again, their behavior might have had nothing to do with racism at all, these could simply have been people having a bad day, or who either (for whatever reason), very much liked me or disliked me.  Unfortunately when you are a visible minority it is hard sometimes to know which is true.

The GOP should focus on winning elections rather than rigging them.

The GOP is spending quite a bit of money and time trying to figure out how to win the next election and many more after that.  Here are my thoughts on the matter, entirely for free :)

Discrimination is not a conservative value:
Women's rights, Gay rights, racial discrimination and other so called 'liberal' issues are not liberal issues, they are people's issues.  These are issues of people who could become potential GOP supporters.  Clearly some aspects of these issues are open for debate, however there are times when the discrimination is clear and in those cases it is not a liberal value to come out against it, it is actually what many would consider a strong conservative value..that of basic fairness.

The GOP does not have to change it's basic stance on these issues, often the arguments presented should be given consideration and are valid, however when the discrimination is clear the GOP should stand up and denounce it.  The GOP would then be viewed by many of those in minority groups as tough on these issues, but essentially fair.

The GOP could argue their points condemning the system that deals with discrimination, or the essential fairness of policies that aim to level the playing fields, rather than making it seem that the general stance of the GOP is that discrimination is acceptable because those on the receiving end are not 'real' American's anyway, and don't deserve to be treated any better.

The Government intervention is not always a bad thing:
The Government (of which many in the party are a part), is not inherently evil. The idea that government can have a place in the lives of many in the form of aid to the poor, the elderly, children and the infirm is not a liberal value.  Helping those in need is one thing that I have seen run very strong among many conservative and there are times when those who have fallen on hard times need some form of help just to get back on their feet.

Conservatives are very willing to give aid, but often they feel that those getting the aid should be worthy.  Nothing that wrong with that point of view, depending on where the 'worthiness' threshold is placed.  If you decided that an entire class or race of people are not 'worthy' of help, then it is possible you will be less favorable in voting for, or implementing policies that help them.

This duality is a double edged sword for the GOP, on one hand for example if you want to prevent pro immigration laws from being passed, all you have to do is convince your base that those immigrants are not deserving of help.  The problem with that kind of politics arises when for various reasons you now want to pass pro immigration laws.  You have now convinced your base that 'these' people don't deserve help and getting conservatives to change their minds once they have made them up, is not an easy thing has the GOP has recently found out.   It also becomes problematic to reach out to the communities that have been demonized and ask them to vote for you even if they might agree with you on many issues.

Conservatives are a diverse bunch:
When most Americans think of an American conservative the image of a white southerner tends to come in mind.  The truth is many minority and immigrant populations tend to be more conservative in general than the white population in general.  Many minority and immigrant groups are very religious even if the churches, synagogs, Mosques and other places of worship are different from those that white conservatives attend.   The social values of many of these groups align very nicely with that of the GOP rather than the Democratic party.

As people age they tend to get more conservative, when people are stressed or living in fear they tend to get more conservative and as people marry they tend to get more conservative.  This means that the GOP should be winning every election hands down as, if you think about it, America by first world standards, is a very conservative country.

Most Conservatives are not rich
Both parties are often at the mercy of very rich people and corporations, but the GOP seems to be more open about this than the Democrats are.  As is the case with diversity, the GOP does not need to become a second Democratic party, but at times, when it is clear that helping the rich at the blatant disadvantage of their constituents, the nation and the environment if the GOP came out and said that in this particular case they could not side with that the rich/corporation, they might lose a couple of supporters (not all that many, where are they going to go after all.. to the democrats?), but they would gain support amongst that... 47% that Mr. Romney thought it useless to even go after.

Again the GOP does not need to alter it's views, policies and values, all they need to do is be fair in some high profile cases even if the person/corporation is a GOP supporter and gives them lots of money.  Conservatives just like Democrats respond favorably to anything they see as being inherently fair.

The GOP can win the popular vote
The GOP knows it has a problem when it comes to the popular vote, they have lost it the last 4 elections and would have lost the house with this last election had so many of the districts not been Jerry-rigged.   My guess is as time goes on, as minority groups grow and prosper they will start moving into territory that was once considered conservative white America.  This will mean that at some point these Jerry-rigged districts might change in demographics and no longer be sure republican seats.

Jerry rigging also makes it hard for those people elected in them to compromise, modernize, or do something needed that their constituency might not agree with.  For example in a non Jerry-rigged, diverse community a republican representative will need to play to her base, but at the same time be aware that she can't alienate the rest of the people living there.  If she does not, as the demographics change,  and if she can appeal to the new demographics with her conservative views she can still win as she would have had to be somewhat of a centrist (this is true of Dems as well) to keep that seat.  If you have an ultra conservative Jerry-rigged district, then the representative will have to play only to that audience, and will have to be much more to the right of her non Jerry rigged neighbor.
She will be fine as long as the demographics of her district stay the same, but if they change she is in trouble.

The other problem with Jerry-rigging, is that with a less diverse constituency it becomes harder to do the 'right' but unpopular thing (like agreeing with President Obama on certain issues), as they will simply replace you the next election with a more conservative representative that won't compromise.

Winning at all costs is not always a good idea
As I watched the first for years of the Obama administration I got the distinct impression that one of the calculated strategies of the GOP was to wreck the economy in order to win the election.  It seemed like they figured that if the economy was weak, it would be easy to get him out of office, that turned out not to be the case and what we have as a result is the same president in a country that should be in a healthy recovery is not, and the GOP share the blame for this situation.

Personally I think the GOP would have done better in the elections, especially with minorities, single women and the younger generations,  if they had focused their energy in getting the economy back on track, not in the least because they would have had less time to alienate whole swaths of American society.  If they had done that they might have come up with some of their own counter-policies to President Obama's that might actually have been logical and sustainable.  They could have taken credit for better conditions in their own constituencies and for helping the economy get back on track.

Laws that aim to prevent groups that have historically fought for the right to vote tends to have the effect of mobilizing those voting groups in higher numbers.  Fighting for the right to bear arms tends to line the pockets of the NRA, the gun industry and thus eventually the coffers of the GOP, however it does not drive people to the polls quite as efficiently as trying to prevent them from exercising their right to vote.  And while those in the constituencies that vote republican might not see their party trying to prevent people from voting, the people against whom those policies are directed know with 100% certainty what is happening.

Compromise is not a bad word
There was a time when people were upset that there did not seem to be that much difference between the parties.  There were conservative democrats, liberal republicans and quite a bit of cross party talking and deal making between the parties.  Once the elections were over, for the most part the parties got down to the business of governing.  The other side was not 'Satan' or 'racist', they were simply 'wrong'.  This is not just a GOP problem but the GOP have raised the ante this election season and at this point, with 'Satan' still president, the GOP have to figure out how to work with him without alienating their ever dwindling base.