Getting more Republican voters

[MillCreek]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/08/17/212729349/rnc-doesnt-focus-on-an-elephant-in-its-ballroom?ft=1&f=1001

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/08/17/212960237/amid-struggle-for-soul-of-gop-libertarians-take-limelight

Not exactly good news for those who believe that the Republicans are doomed unless they double down on bringing back conservative white voters into the Republican tent.

[Perd Hapley]

Not exactly good news for those who believe that the Republicans are doomed unless they double down on bringing back conservative white voters into the Republican tent.

Who would that be? I'm unaware of anyone claiming that we need white voters, as opposed to others. Haven't we heard enough of such race-baiting from the Democrats? Why do you have to join in? 

[MillCreek]

From the first link:

The defensive tone is probably understandable, given the position Priebus finds himself in. The party establishment has concluded that an electoral strategy relying on overwhelming support from white voters to make up for weak performance with minorities is no longer useful.

Yet these leaders are getting strong resistance from much of their own white, disproportionately southern base of support — particularly because the outreach to Latinos has become entwined with the push for an immigration overhaul. The GOP establishment is having to counter a "missing white voters" theory that posits that minority outreach is not necessary (at least not in the next few election cycles) if the party can instead bring disaffected whites back to the polls.

Why do you have such a defensive tone?  Why do you hate the Republican establishment who is just trying to win elections?   

[Gowen]

My wife got a free subscription to  the WSJ, I use it to line the cat litter box and start fires in the wood stove.  It was Thurs or Fri issue that had Chris Christy on the front cover saying his was the way to win the white house in 2016.  Yep, Democrat Lt. policies are the way to win.  Isn't that what we had with the McCain/Romney double punch?

[MillCreek]

http://on.wsj.com/1cQYqsb

I think this is the article. 

[roo_ster]

The RNC and other professional GOP-icans have a problem with innumeracy. 

[Perd Hapley]

It's not that "minority outreach" is unnecessary. It's that minority outreach would mean the sort of destroy-America-now polices that would make the Republican Party into the Democratic Party. Of course, we have quite enough of that, already.

[AZRedhawk44]

I laugh at the notion of Libertarians being a wing of the GOP.  At least one with any meaning.

It's usually 1-2 election cycles as a Libertarian before a L-leaning GOP-er will just not vote any more.  Either through introspection on the philosophy of force and consent, or just plain or dismay.

Gary Johnson didn't even set up a tent at "Libertopia" because it's pretty common knowledge that the fiercest-believing Libertarians refuse to vote at all.

[AJ Dual]

If you want more Republican/Conservative voters, stop fighting abortion.

Because abortion kills more minority/liberal babies than it does white/conservative ones.

Roe V. Wade 1973. First national election where the now "depopulated" 18-21 year old cohort born or not born since '73 could vote, was the '94 Republican landslide.

[AZRedhawk44]

If you want more Republican/Conservative voters, stop fighting abortion.

Because abortion kills more minority/liberal babies than it does white/conservative ones.

Roe V. Wade 1973. First national election where the now "depopulated" 18-21 year old cohort born or not born since '73 could vote, was the '94 Republican landslide.

The notion you propose is abhorrent to pursue for political expediency purposes.  As modest a proposal as Swift's, but less humor to it.

It's the correct notion, but not FOR political gain.

'94 was a reaction to fiscal policy.  Not due to a sudden shift in youth demographics.

[Tallpine]

The notion you propose is abhorrent to pursue for political expediency purposes.  As modest a proposal as Swift's, but less humor to it.

It's the correct notion, but not FOR political gain.

'94 was a reaction to fiscal policy.  Not due to a sudden shift in youth demographics.

Hilarycare / AWB

[AJ Dual]

The notion you propose is abhorrent to pursue for political expediency purposes.  As modest a proposal as Swift's, but less humor to it.

It's the correct notion, but not FOR political gain.

'94 was a reaction to fiscal policy.  Not due to a sudden shift in youth demographics.

What "fiscal policy" exactly? Does anyone even remember? As compared to now, when the first four years went by since 2008, the response was to throw gas on the fire and do even more of the same, and the people still voted for four more years of it?

The '94 AWB and Hillarycare are much more reasonable explanations. Although I'll add that Obamacare was polling with something like 60% disapproval ratings before the 2012 election, and it still didn't make any difference...

It is obviously somewhat hyperbole Swift/Modest Proposal-ish on my part to say "abortion", in terms of pointing it out. Although I do think it's a root cause in the fundamental demographic problems we're facing electorally to even having a chance of staying an actual constitutionally limited representational republic.

While I'm personally pro-life, and arrive at it through an examination of Libertarian principles as applied to a baby, I think in the long term we're probably screwed on the issue. I do believe the demographic impact of abortion, or the lack of it is a rotten political Catch-22 for the Right.

The Right allows abortion, they lose their base and fragment. The Right limits or abolishes it, the Left out-populates the Right in a generation or two, and just reinstates it anyway. 

[grampster]

The Republican heirarchy is D Light.  They are called the Stupid Party with much justification.  The R's have lost their base by agonizing over people who have never been R and may never be R.  That's their problem.  If the R's were smart, they'd run a libertarian leaning Republican.  They have nothing to lose!!  If they go for another smarmy middle of the roader who is a D in R clothing, they will lose again!  Romney lost because most of the conservative and libertarian R's stayed home.  So why not just do the smart thing and go All In?  Sigh....

[MillCreek]

Perhaps it is unique to my area, or my social circle, but a lot of my Republican friends are, like me, socially towards the center/liberal side, fiscally conservative and advocate less governmental intrusion in many areas.  That also tends to be the orientation of many Republicans who get elected in this state, especially in the wealthy enclaves of our dot com industry. 

The Bible-thumping Republicans who are against gay marriage, abortion, etc. don't play well in the more populated areas of Washington and that is how you get Democratic governors here.  Our latest Republican candidate, the former Attorney General McKenna, is more socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but got tarred with the national Republican platforms and that is what brought him down.

[MechAg94]

Personally, I think many of the "social" issues are traps and really are not federal issues anyway.  Democrats use them more to scare their base as to actually get voters.  Marriage just is not a federal issue.  Abortion shouldn't be.  Most social issue should not be.  

Seriously, even if you were able to hand pick SC Judges, it would take at least a couple decades or more to change the court enough to overturn Roe versus Wade.  Given that, why would a GOP candidate even get into that discussion? 

[Tallpine]

Obamacare was polling with something like 60% disapproval ratings before the 2012 election, and it still didn't make any difference...

Romneycare 

[RevDisk]

Perhaps it is unique to my area, or my social circle, but a lot of my Republican friends are, like me, socially towards the center/liberal side, fiscally conservative and advocate less governmental intrusion in many areas.  That also tends to be the orientation of many Republicans who get elected in this state, especially in the wealthy enclaves of our dot com industry. 

The Bible-thumping Republicans who are against gay marriage, abortion, etc. don't play well in the more populated areas of Washington and that is how you get Democratic governors here.  Our latest Republican candidate, the former Attorney General McKenna, is more socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but got tarred with the national Republican platforms and that is what brought him down.

Here in PA, we have a mix of "Leave me alone" Republicans and Bible Thumpers. There's a reason why Dems are basically parity. Thankfully, the "Leave me alone" Republicans generally keep a good muzzle on the Bible Thumpers when it comes to proposed laws. From what I've seen, most of the religious Republicans do not think kindly of fiscal conservatism. They tend to just upset at money going to things they dislike. "Leave Me Alone" Republicans tend to be a mix, but generally not fiscally liberal. There

Dems... Well, you have two kinds. The bat excrement crazy ones from Harrisburg, Philly, etc cities that tend to be not nice places. The more sane ones tend to be from fairly wealthy suburbs that make serious loot in bulk terms. They tend not to want to be very fiscally conservative, but they also don't push GOP freedom/liberty infringements either.


It's hard to find socially liberal (preferably center rather than liberal), fiscally conservative candidates, which is where most of the folks I know tend to fit in.

[brimic]

It's hard to find socially liberal (preferably center rather than liberal), fiscally conservative candidates, which is where most of the folks I know tend to fit in.

That is by design.
Dems/repubs are pretty much two sides of the smae coin. The last they want is a successful libertarian movement, which would mean the gravy train would be over for both D and R special interests.

[Tallpine]

That is by design.
Dems/repubs are pretty much two sides of the smae coin. The last they want is a successful libertarian movement, which would mean the gravy train would be over for both D and R special interests.

Yeah the only difference is that they want to ban different things 

[MillCreek]

Yeah the only difference is that they want to ban different things 

Boy, ain't that the truth.

[RevDisk]

Yeah the only difference is that they want to ban different things 

Ayep.

[Scout26]

How about having a guiding set of principles and then standing and fighting for them (ala Reagan)?

[lupinus]

How about having a guiding set of principles and then standing and fighting for them (ala Reagan)?

Shut up peasant. Just vote for who we tell you to vote for like a good boy.

[RevDisk]

How about having a guiding set of principles and then standing and fighting for them (ala Reagan)?

I actually did laugh out loud.

If you think your favorite politician isn't a scumbag, you haven't done enough research or are intentionally ignoring it.

[Fitz]

How about having a guiding set of principles and then standing and fighting for them (ala Reagan)?

Scout, I love ya.... but I really think a lot of the Reagan worship I see is a result of some SERIOUSLY rose colored glasses.


He's not the worst. Hell, might have even been one of the best.... but he was no stranger to supporting things for political expediency over principle.