The GOP is not changing anytime soon; here's why...

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/obama-religion-voters-2012_n_2090258.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.accuracy.org/release/election-results-the-income-divide/

Does anyone here honestly believe that the GOP is going to "see the light" and "become more moderate" on any issue anytime soon(let alone social issues, considering the 79% of white evangelicals who voted for Romney)?

This is the modern Republican Party-whiter, older, more male, more religious (especially Christian), and wealthier than the American population in general. This is true of both the Republican "base" and the GOP "establishment."

The GOP has no choice but to continue doubling down on what they currently are, at least for the time being. It's not about whether they want to change (they don't) or not; it's that they have boxed themselves in, demographically and politically, and the disconnect between what they are and where the country is going just makes them angrier, more partisan, more ideological.

Yes, one day the Republican Party will be quite different. But not anytime soon, IMHO.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm curious how different incomes voted adjusted for race. I imagine there are more blacks/Hispanics in the lower groups, so it would be interesting to see how poorer whites voted.

[NHI]

Not a good sign for 2016...

[All Along The Watchtower]

I'm curious how different incomes voted adjusted for race. I imagine there are more blacks/Hispanics in the lower groups, so it would be interesting to see how poorer whites voted.

My guess would be less Republican than middle and upper income whites, but still lean Republican. Different definitions will get different results, of course.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Whites under 50K voted for McCain 51-47. It also seems that Obama dropped with more with >50K whites than with <50K-ers, so maybe 54-44 for "poorer" whites?

One of two things (maybe both) have to happen before the GOP begins to shift (they will eventually be forced to, whether they like it or not):

A. Demographic shifts continue to favor the Democratic Party; maybe the GOP does even worse with minorities than they did in 2012.
B. A Democratic nominee in 2016 or 2020 is able to cut into the white vote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's not a problem in itself. To the contrary, the fact evangelicals and wealthy voters are so overwhelmingly Republican means that they have this electorate locked up and can focus on convincing more "swingy" demographics.

Doesn't means they will (at least not anytime soon).

[Skill and Chance]

That's not a problem in itself. To the contrary, the fact evangelicals and wealthy voters are so overwhelmingly Republican means that they have this electorate locked up and can focus on convincing more "swingy" demographics.

Doesn't means they will (at least not anytime soon).

Well, there's two sides to that coin.  If the GOP primary electorate were even slightly more rural this year, Santorum would have been the nominee.  The party is getting more rural with time.  Obama more than compensated with his margins in the suburbs, but one of the big stories of 2012 was the complete collapse of rural white Democrats outside of New England.  Just a few more rural voters in the GOP primary and the SoCons may have a stranglehold by 2016.

It's similar to the predicament of the early 20th century Democrats.  Their rural support was so strong that they would nominate candidates completely unacceptable to the cities and suburbs.  I don't expect the modern GOP to go that far off the cliff, but this is fundamentally the reason they can't break 48% right now.

The best test of how bad it will get is the South.  If the South gets even more one-sided to the point where the less diverse states are consistently going 70% R, then it will take a long while to get out of the SoCon trap.  As I see it there are two ways back to the 50 state campaigns of the mid-20th century:

1. The rise of a religious left, which allows Democrats to seriously contest the Evangelical vote, forcing the GOP to expand its coalition and making the Deep South competitive again.  A Great Awakening style revival historically follows the kind of economic turmoil the country has recently faced, and the movement would probably have a progressive bent given today's youth.

2.  The parties make peace on environmental issues or new technologies solve pollution/climate change to the point where green issues fade from the political scene.  In this world, Republicans could contest the West Coast and Democrats could compete again in Appalachia.

[Franknburger]

As I see it there are two ways back to the 50 state campaigns of the mid-20th century:

1. The rise of a religious left, which allows Democrats to seriously contest the Evangelical vote, forcing the GOP to expand its coalition and making the Deep South competitive again.  A Great Awakening style revival historically follows the kind of economic turmoil the country has recently faced, and the movement would probably have a progressive bent given today's youth.

What kind of religous left would that be? Economically left ("share with the poor"), environmentalist ("preserve god's creation"), globalist / pacifist ("peace to the world"), or even social?

[Beezer]

The GOP isn't going to change cause there is no incentive to change for many of its congressional members. How do they win elections at home? By ranting about Obamacare and not giving in on anything. That's where a moderate wing could be helpful to reign in some of the people but if you're Republican member of Congress from the South or some of the other deep red states, why would you change anything if you
a) didn't have to appeal to moderates back home anyway (since there are none of they've been removed from your district) and
b) had to worry about a primary challenge from the right in case you did moderate? The GOP has a huge base problem which is mentioned in the initial post. The thing that's keeping Democrats honest is that there is a way to win primaries in that party by winning over moderates and leaning liberals.

Some data:

Chuck Todd and his terrific political team at NBC News pointed out in their Nov. 27 First Read newsletter that 117 House Republicans won with 60 percent of the vote or more, meaning that two-thirds of the GOP Conference is made up of people who won easily, with margins considerably higher than President Obama was able to achieve.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/the-one-pollster-republicans-should-listen-to-20121129

[DC Al Fine]

As I see it there are two ways back to the 50 state campaigns of the mid-20th century:

1. The rise of a religious left, which allows Democrats to seriously contest the Evangelical vote, forcing the GOP to expand its coalition and making the Deep South competitive again.  A Great Awakening style revival historically follows the kind of economic turmoil the country has recently faced, and the movement would probably have a progressive bent given today's youth.

What kind of religous left would that be? Economically left ("share with the poor"), environmentalist ("preserve god's creation"), globalist / pacifist ("peace to the world"), or even social?

More importantly, this says something about American politics. Making the whole nation competitive is predicated on the rise of a new religious movement?

[Indy Texas]

1. The rise of a religious left, which allows Democrats to seriously contest the Evangelical vote, forcing the GOP to expand its coalition and making the Deep South competitive again.  A Great Awakening style revival historically follows the kind of economic turmoil the country has recently faced, and the movement would probably have a progressive bent given today's youth.

The "religious left" of which you speak is also fervently anti-abortion. The Democrats can have them or they can have the feminists. They can't have both.

[BaldEagle1991]

Well what do you expect? They won't change as long as this generation of old white Christian males that grew up prior to 1960 are still alive.

[Mallory]

Not a good sign for 2016...

This.

Sure, the demographics are a problem. In a ever-changing population, a seemingly anti-immigrant, traditional, almost paternalistic, message isn't going to appeal enough for it to be electorally possible for them to win.

As far as I can see - the GOP are lacking in any ideas. Their whole message is based on their opposition to Obama. Despite the President's shortcomings, the public clearly rejected Republican ideas in 2012, so the same attack message isn't going to work in just under 4 years time.

It will be 2020 at the earliest that Republicans may actually be able to a positive case for them to be elected nationally. The biggest shame is that a weak opposition means poor government - and that's only going to have a negative effect on the whole country.

[hopper]

Not a good sign for 2016...

This.

Sure, the demographics are a problem. In a ever-changing population, a seemingly anti-immigrant, traditional, almost paternalistic, message isn't going to appeal enough for it to be electorally possible for them to win.

As far as I can see - the GOP are lacking in any ideas. Their whole message is based on their opposition to Obama. Despite the President's shortcomings, the public clearly rejected Republican ideas in 2012, so the same attack message isn't going to work in just under 4 years time.

It will be 2020 at the earliest that Republicans may actually be able to a positive case for them to be elected nationally. The biggest shame is that a weak opposition means poor government - and that's only going to have a negative effect on the whole country.

The GOP is not anti-immigrant  but anti-immigration reform to people who either came here illegally themselves or brought there kids illegally along with them. Its still not good to be anti-immigration reform with hispanics even though the GOP's base loves that kind of thing.

Like the Dems didn't run against Bush W. when he is in office as opposed to your saying that the Republicans are running against Obama? The Dems disliked Bush W. nearly as much as the R's despise Obama.

As far as the GOP lacking in idea's here is one idea they should cut out is the tax cuts for millionares rhetoric. Maybe Obama not renewing the tax cuts for the upper 2% did them a blessing in disquise. This way its not an issue anymore. Just entitlement reform is the topic at hand.

As far as the topic itself the GOP can keep the religious right as one base of its  support but it can't be their only base of support.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It's possible, but I don't think moderation is what the GOP needs.  What we need is to communicate our positions better, and I hope the party realizes that we need to take more steps to that in order to win in 2014, 2016, and beyond.

[soniquemd21921]

If you went back to earlier periods you'd hear similar messages about how the party would never have success again:

1924: "The party of Cleveland and Bryan has, in the past few years, been reduced to a party that has no appeal to anyone who isn't a Southerner or an Irishman. Expect a Republican majority in Congress and Republicans in the White House for many more years - or as long as the economy remains at this unprecedented level."

1936: "The Republicans may soon go the way of the Whigs, or at least be reduced to just being the party of Maine and Vermont. It seems the only thing the party stands for, to most Americans, is attacking Roosevelt and not doing anything about the Depression. The stench of Hoover still lingers for many, and given Roosevelt's extraordinary popularity, that isn't likely to change anytime soon."

1948: "The GOP is perceived by many as the anti-labor and anti-Catholic party. Unless they modify their positions on unions - and don't bet on it - they will continue to be a minority party for the next generation, with little support beyond their core Protestant, small-town, upper-income and suburban base in the Northeast and Midwest."

1964: "With Goldwater, the Republican Party appears to have done something that even FDR did not achieve: alienate its core base. In the next few years, rather than farmers from Kansas, fishermen from Cape Cod and bankers from Long Island as the loyal party base, expect to see John Birch Society members from Orange County, wealthy Southerners and military-industrial complex supporters from Arizona become the new party base."

1972: "If the Democratic Party continues to nominate hard-left candidates like McGovern, it could mean the beginning of the emerging Republican majority. The party base of Catholics, blue-collar whites and Southerners will soon be replaced by a base of racial minorities, socially liberal activists and college-educated professionals. While this will keep the party in power in Harlem and Cambridge,
it won't help much in Flint and Birmingham."

2004: same as 1972, but with the Democrats being reduced to being "the party of the Northeast and the Left Coast."

2008: replace 'Maine and Vermont' with 'Utah and Mississippi', 'Hoover' and 'Depression' with 'Bush' and 'Iraq War', and 'Roosevelt' with 'Obama'.

[Beezer]

It's possible, but I don't think moderation is what the GOP needs.  What we need is to communicate our positions better, and I hope the party realizes that we need to take more steps to that in order to win in 2014, 2016, and beyond.

But if you look at people's views on a variety of social issues it becomes quite clear that the message itself is the problem and not how it is communicated to the voting public. The GOP needs to come to terms with the 21st century.

[NHI]

If you went back to earlier periods you'd hear similar messages about how the party would never have success again:

1924: "The party of Cleveland and Bryan has, in the past few years, been reduced to a party that has no appeal to anyone who isn't a Southerner or an Irishman. Expect a Republican majority in Congress and Republicans in the White House for many more years - or as long as the economy remains at this unprecedented level."

1936: "The Republicans may soon go the way of the Whigs, or at least be reduced to just being the party of Maine and Vermont. It seems the only thing the party stands for, to most Americans, is attacking Roosevelt and not doing anything about the Depression. The stench of Hoover still lingers for many, and given Roosevelt's extraordinary popularity, that isn't likely to change anytime soon."

1948: "The GOP is perceived by many as the anti-labor and anti-Catholic party. Unless they modify their positions on unions - and don't bet on it - they will continue to be a minority party for the next generation, with little support beyond their core Protestant, small-town, upper-income and suburban base in the Northeast and Midwest."

1964: "With Goldwater, the Republican Party appears to have done something that even FDR did not achieve: alienate its core base. In the next few years, rather than farmers from Kansas, fishermen from Cape Cod and bankers from Long Island as the loyal party base, expect to see John Birch Society members from Orange County, wealthy Southerners and military-industrial complex supporters from Arizona become the new party base."

1972: "If the Democratic Party continues to nominate hard-left candidates like McGovern, it could mean the beginning of the emerging Republican majority. The party base of Catholics, blue-collar whites and Southerners will soon be replaced by a base of racial minorities, socially liberal activists and college-educated professionals. While this will keep the party in power in Harlem and Cambridge,
it won't help much in Flint and Birmingham."

2004: same as 1972, but with the Democrats being reduced to being "the party of the Northeast and the Left Coast."

2008: replace 'Maine and Vermont' with 'Utah and Mississippi', 'Hoover' and 'Depression' with 'Bush' and 'Iraq War', and 'Roosevelt' with 'Obama'.

This.

[Siloch]

The future of the Republican party lies in appealing to voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, these states demographically are winnable for them.

I don't think the GOP needs to become more right wing to appeal to evangelicals, I mean it is not as if they would ever vote for a current left wing, pro-gay marriage, big government Democrat over a moderate Republican.

The GOP can afford to become more moderate on certain issues that would appeal to voters in the states I mentioned.

I hate to bring it down to race but the GOP only needs to improve with northern whites by a couple of percentage points to win those states and they are back in the game. Asians could also be a demographic that the GOP could try to appeal to, especially the middle class ones. Bush won them back in 1988. Hispanics have always leaned Democratic however, which is why I think appealing to them on issues like amnesty is a waste of time.

[Sbane]

If they continue with nativism, they will continue to lose middle class and upper income Asians and Hispanics. Republicans don't need to win the Hispanic vote, they need to cut the margin to 60-40. And really not supporting things like the AZ immigration law is more important to Asians and Hispanics than supporting amnesty or whatever. That is something that can be swept under the rug since citizens who are voting in elections are usually not as affected by it. Racist laws like the AZ immigration law affects all Asians and Hispanics.

[Mallory]

Not a good sign for 2016...

This.

Sure, the demographics are a problem. In a ever-changing population, a seemingly anti-immigrant, traditional, almost paternalistic, message isn't going to appeal enough for it to be electorally possible for them to win.

As far as I can see - the GOP are lacking in any ideas. Their whole message is based on their opposition to Obama. Despite the President's shortcomings, the public clearly rejected Republican ideas in 2012, so the same attack message isn't going to work in just under 4 years time.

It will be 2020 at the earliest that Republicans may actually be able to a positive case for them to be elected nationally. The biggest shame is that a weak opposition means poor government - and that's only going to have a negative effect on the whole country.

The GOP is not anti-immigrant  but anti-immigration reform to people who either came here illegally themselves or brought there kids illegally along with them. Its still not good to be anti-immigration reform with hispanics even though the GOP's base loves that kind of thing.

Like the Dems didn't run against Bush W. when he is in office as opposed to your saying that the Republicans are running against Obama? The Dems disliked Bush W. nearly as much as the R's despise Obama.

As far as the GOP lacking in idea's here is one idea they should cut out is the tax cuts for millionares rhetoric. Maybe Obama not renewing the tax cuts for the upper 2% did them a blessing in disquise. This way its not an issue anymore. Just entitlement reform is the topic at hand.

As far as the topic itself the GOP can keep the religious right as one base of its  support but it can't be their only base of support.

I was talking about perceptions, but I totally get what you said

[Siloch]

If they continue with nativism, they will continue to lose middle class and upper income Asians and Hispanics. Republicans don't need to win the Hispanic vote, they need to cut the margin to 60-40. And really not supporting things like the AZ immigration law is more important to Asians and Hispanics than supporting amnesty or whatever. That is something that can be swept under the rug since citizens who are voting in elections are usually not as affected by it. Racist laws like the AZ immigration law affects all Asians and Hispanics.

Arizona's Immigration Law is not racist, if you want a racist immigration law check out Mexico's.

[freefair]

Agreed. The GOP could move slightly left and win whites 62-36, and it doesn't need to win minorities b the same margin
-45% of Hispanics
-52% of Asians and Indians
-20% of Blacks
Also, It needs to get at least 48% among women.

[Gunnar Larsson]

If you went back to earlier periods you'd hear similar messages about how the party would never have success again:

1924: "The party of Cleveland and Bryan has, in the past few years, been reduced to a party that has no appeal to anyone who isn't a Southerner or an Irishman. Expect a Republican majority in Congress and Republicans in the White House for many more years - or as long as the economy remains at this unprecedented level."

1936: "The Republicans may soon go the way of the Whigs, or at least be reduced to just being the party of Maine and Vermont. It seems the only thing the party stands for, to most Americans, is attacking Roosevelt and not doing anything about the Depression. The stench of Hoover still lingers for many, and given Roosevelt's extraordinary popularity, that isn't likely to change anytime soon."

1948: "The GOP is perceived by many as the anti-labor and anti-Catholic party. Unless they modify their positions on unions - and don't bet on it - they will continue to be a minority party for the next generation, with little support beyond their core Protestant, small-town, upper-income and suburban base in the Northeast and Midwest."

1964: "With Goldwater, the Republican Party appears to have done something that even FDR did not achieve: alienate its core base. In the next few years, rather than farmers from Kansas, fishermen from Cape Cod and bankers from Long Island as the loyal party base, expect to see John Birch Society members from Orange County, wealthy Southerners and military-industrial complex supporters from Arizona become the new party base."

1972: "If the Democratic Party continues to nominate hard-left candidates like McGovern, it could mean the beginning of the emerging Republican majority. The party base of Catholics, blue-collar whites and Southerners will soon be replaced by a base of racial minorities, socially liberal activists and college-educated professionals. While this will keep the party in power in Harlem and Cambridge,
it won't help much in Flint and Birmingham."

2004: same as 1972, but with the Democrats being reduced to being "the party of the Northeast and the Left Coast."

2008: replace 'Maine and Vermont' with 'Utah and Mississippi', 'Hoover' and 'Depression' with 'Bush' and 'Iraq War', and 'Roosevelt' with 'Obama'.

Well, I would say that there was some truth in most of the comments. The Democrats had to wait until the Depression, it would take 16 more years until the next Republican president etc. Obviously "never" is rarely never, but rather "quite some time"

[Sbane]

If they continue with nativism, they will continue to lose middle class and upper income Asians and Hispanics. Republicans don't need to win the Hispanic vote, they need to cut the margin to 60-40. And really not supporting things like the AZ immigration law is more important to Asians and Hispanics than supporting amnesty or whatever. That is something that can be swept under the rug since citizens who are voting in elections are usually not as affected by it. Racist laws like the AZ immigration law affects all Asians and Hispanics.

Arizona's Immigration Law is not racist, if you want a racist immigration law check out Mexico's.

Giving cops the authority to pull over people if they look like they are illegals is most certainly racist. Instead, why don't we focus on more policing of the borders and strategic fencing? As well as doing a better job of deporting illegals with felonies? The last point is something the Obama administration has actually been doing.

The AZ immigration law was a nativist law passed by a legislature trying to deflect blame for AZ's budget problems at the height of the recession. Trying to blame immigrants and outsiders during hard economic times is not something new in America, and the Republican party of Arizona played the same card in 2010. What's sad is that the rest of the Republican party stood right by them. That is why Republicans lost the support of Cubans and Vietnamese, two groups that have been supporting Republicans for decades. Go ahead with the nativism, and face the consequences.