RNC: Voters see GOP as 'scary' and 'out of touch'

[TNF]

Moving to the center on social issues won't help the GOP. It'll just send their white working class voters into the hands of the Democrats, who actually would do a better job representing them anyway, at least on pocketbook issues. If the Republicans want to make themselves electable and make inroads with minorities, they don't need to move to the left on social issues. Rather, they need to stop being the elected patrons of plutocratic privilege.

Of course that will never happen. The Republicans have been in plutocracy's grip since 1876, and every time they nominate a reformer (T.R., Ike) they ultimately get outmaneuvered by the bone-headed business elites that want to drag the country back into the Gilded Age. If by some miracle the GOP could move to the center on economics, or even the center-left, they'd have a good shot at rebuilding themselves as a mass party, conservative social positions or not.

Correct, and this, coupled with the possibility that the Democratic party could someday move left due to the browns makes me anticipate some form of (further) anti-democratic alteration of the State - as our own pbrower has often predicted.

I'd say that's more likely than most people assume. The wealthy aren't just going to allow the Democrats to waltz in and start redistributing their piles of cash. We're already seeing the champions of cheap labor mobilize to deny the poor the vote again in the South and the periphery regions they control by implementing Voter ID and trying to change the rules that govern the electoral college to make it even less representative than it already is.

That, and they already own the courts. That much is obvious. The United States Constitution is the greatest ally the plutocrats have, as it breaks up and divides power without democratizing it. And they own the media and the universities, contrary to conservative ballyhooing about the "left" owning the media and the academy.

There are a lot of ways that the plutocrats can conspire to limit the impending Democratic majority. They've already gerrymandered the House to be their's for at least until 2020. They're deliberately sabotaging the economy in hopes of taking the Senate in 2014. Should they gain control of the White House in 2016, they'll be ripe to prevent that Democratic majority from ever emerging by passing such awful things like a national right-to-work bill, national voter ID, means-testing everything, and expanding the influence of globalization in the American economy.

tl;dr -  Don't get cocky, Democrats. Even with the public scared sh**tless at the moment by the GOP doesn't mean that the GOP will become completely unelectable and unable to win, even while remaining on the far-right. They'll just do as they always have - change the rules to continue the domination of American society by a plutocratic elite.

[TNF]

Moving to the center on social issues won't help the GOP. It'll just send their white working class voters into the hands of the Democrats, who actually would do a better job representing them anyway, at least on pocketbook issues.

How many white working-class Republicans think like that though? "Oh I'd vote for the Democrats, except I'm a social conservative." In my experience, people who are right-wing on social issues are also usually pretty damn right-wing on economics, regardless of income (this is especially true in places like the South or the West). And as opebo often alludes to, a lot of the economic AND social conservatism of working-class and working-poor whites is due to racism (and also paired with sexism, particularly among white men, and xenophobia/nativism regarding immigrants).

This is true. I'd say it would be a very small chunk of them, anyway, but even a small chunk would help the Democrats out. But yeah, you're right. The overwhelming majority of them are right-wing on economics as well as social issues.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I'd say, however, that many working-class white conservatives are more populistic than they are right-wing. They might chant "stop the spending", but only have a vague understanding of the actual issue of austerity. However, the GOP has mastered the art of postwar propaganda (and has won the war on how the economy is framed, so most voters of both parties buy the idea that austerity is necessary and beneficial) and so currently has a lock on a clueless and formerly Democratic bloc of voters.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I'd say, however, that many working-class white conservatives are more populistic than they are right-wing. They might chant "stop the spending", but only have a vague understanding of the actual issue of austerity. However, the GOP has mastered the art of postwar propaganda (and has won the war on how the economy is framed, so most voters of both parties buy the idea that austerity is necessary and beneficial) and so currently has a lock on a clueless and formerly Democratic bloc of voters.

Yet the GOP does not have a lock on working-class whites in general, though-which we need to remember.

[Indy Texas]

Moving to the center on social issues won't help the GOP. It'll just send their white working class voters into the hands of the Democrats, who actually would do a better job representing them anyway, at least on pocketbook issues. If the Republicans want to make themselves electable and make inroads with minorities, they don't need to move to the left on social issues. Rather, they need to stop being the elected patrons of plutocratic privilege.

Of course that will never happen. The Republicans have been in plutocracy's grip since 1876, and every time they nominate a reformer (T.R., Ike) they ultimately get outmaneuvered by the bone-headed business elites that want to drag the country back into the Gilded Age. If by some miracle the GOP could move to the center on economics, or even the center-left, they'd have a good shot at rebuilding themselves as a mass party, conservative social positions or not.

I've heard the opposite argument made also: that when the Democrats moved towards the center on economic issues in the '90s, it sent their lunchpail voters into the hands of the Republicans.

Former Congressman Dan Glickman (D-Kansas) did an interview for something a few years ago and he mentioned that a rural white guy came up to him in 1994 and told him why he wasn't voting for him. He basically said that Glickman supported NAFTA which he saw as a threat to the livelihood of him and people like him. Furthermore, he and people like him were/are very socially conservative. So, if forced to choose between a party that was wrong on social issues and economic issues (the Democrats), and one that was just wrong on economic issues (the Republicans), he was going to go with the Republicans.

Low-income whites generally fall into one of two categories: the "angry" ones who want to lash out at someone to make them feel better about their situation, and the "hopeless" ones who figure they're screwed, their parents had a miserable, hardscrabble life and their children and grandchildren will have miserable, hardscrabble lives, and usually don't even bother voting.

Even if the angry ones don't like the GOP's move to the center socially, where are they going to go? The Democrats don't want them and shouldn't want them. They can win elections without them and, quite frankly, the rest of their coalition - the educated, the minorities - aren't going to want to be in the same party with those people.

[TJ in Oregon]

Some retreats will clearly be made, but be careful what you wish for GOP...

Would you vote Democrat if the GOP gives up on opposing gay marriage?

No. I expect that much to happen at this point, although it matters some on how they go about doing it, obviously. If the GOP gives up on abortion, though I may vote for Democrats, at least more than I do now. I don't care enough about gay marriage enough to freak out about that one. The GOP needs at least some set of issues they retain a more socially conservative position on to keep me from going rouge. For instance, opposing legalized marijuana and the HHS mandate would be a nice bone to throw me. They need to support religious exemptions to pretty much anything newly imposed by the government, etc. But if they throw the socon wing totally under the bus... Why should I vote for them?

Some retreats will clearly be made, but be careful what you wish for GOP...

1) That is pretty much already the standard now.
2) What are Ohio Republicans going to do? Vote Democrat because the GOP went liberal on social issues?

This wasn't a thread for Ohio Republicans in general, so much as from me specifically. (I am an Ohio resident even though I'm in Wisconsin for college).

Seems to me like you are simply using this to stop the GOP from moving forward on social issues for your own interests (looking at your scores on the matrix).

Of course. Social issues are the reason I vote for Republicans more often than not. I'm not wedded to any party's fiscal platform, and in fact, I probably stand to benefit financially from the Democrats winning. I'm not a fiscal leftist, but there is a particular segment of the Republican Party with fiscal views I am very much against, such as auditing the Fed or implementing a flat tax. I also am vaguely pro-union. It isn't altogether out of the question that I'd vote for the Democrats over Gary Johnson or someone of his ilk (though Ron Paul may have managed to retain me). I've voted for Democrats before whenever I felt they were a better candidate or represented my views better than the Republican. If I'm content with neither, there may well be a time when I vote for neither. I tend not to like the idea of voting for third party candidates or protest votes, but again, I also don't like being thrown under the proverbial bus.

Whatever changes are made to the Republican Party need to be more carefully thought out than simply dumping one group in favor of another. There has to be some give-and-take from many ideological directions. We're going to have to be less dogmatic on a lot of things, including some I care about. I understand that much.