Some social conservatives threaten to abandon GOP

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Washington Post

So the GOP is screwed on this issue no matter what they do?

Who are these socons going to turn to, anyway?

[Old Man Svensson]

Hopefully they leave the country so some sanity can return to the freakshow of America.

[DC Al Fine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Washington Post

So the GOP is screwed on this issue no matter what they do?

Who are these socons going to turn to, anyway?

In order of probability

1) Stay home
2) Vote Democrat on non-abortion/SSM stuff
3) 3rd party/GOPScrew

[Grumpier Than Thou]

More Constitution Party voters in 2016.

[TNF]

Beautiful.

[Keystone Phil]

I have a lot of things to say about the involvement/shunning of social conservatives (like myself) within the GOP but I'd like to make one specific point here in response to a previous post: social issues encompass more than just "abortion/SSM stuff."

And an anecdote: I had a Paultard "friend" of mine lecture me the other day about how my side better shut up about social issues yet he has no problem slobbering over curly top's gun control filibuster. Typical ignoramus.

Social issues - don't dare mention them...until, you know, you realize you have an opinion on one of them and want to speak out. This is why the "Stop with the social issues!" crowd will never be successful and certainly won't take over the GOP.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I have a lot of things to say about the involvement/shunning of social conservatives (like myself) within the GOP but I'd like to make one specific point here in response to a previous post: social issues encompass more than just "abortion/SSM stuff."

And an anecdote: I had a Paultard "friend" of mine lecture me the other day about how my side better shut up about social issues yet he has no problem slobbering over curly top's gun control filibuster. Typical ignoramus.

Social issues - don't dare mention them...until, you know, you realize you have an opinion on one of them and want to speak out. This is why the "Stop with the social issues!" crowd will never be successful and certainly won't take over the GOP.

Actually, I think the real reason that the "Stop the social issues" crowd will never be successful and certainly won't take over the GOP is because social conservatives are the electoral backbone of the GOP.

[Keystone Phil]

I have a lot of things to say about the involvement/shunning of social conservatives (like myself) within the GOP but I'd like to make one specific point here in response to a previous post: social issues encompass more than just "abortion/SSM stuff."

And an anecdote: I had a Paultard "friend" of mine lecture me the other day about how my side better shut up about social issues yet he has no problem slobbering over curly top's gun control filibuster. Typical ignoramus.

Social issues - don't dare mention them...until, you know, you realize you have an opinion on one of them and want to speak out. This is why the "Stop with the social issues!" crowd will never be successful and certainly won't take over the GOP.

Actually, I think the real reason that the "Stop the social issues" crowd will never be successful and certainly won't take over the GOP is because social conservatives are the electoral backbone of the GOP.

Well, yes. Try explaining that to one of those people though. They don't realize or just don't care how many millions of voters they'd be losing. And no, they wouldn't gain enough to offset that. Not even close.

Anyway, I do believe their own hypocrisy on the subject is a big reason, though maybe not the biggest reason, why they won't be successful.

[Link]

And an anecdote: I had a Paultard "friend" of mine lecture me the other day about how my side better shut up about social issues yet he has no problem slobbering over curly top's gun control filibuster. Typical ignoramus.

I think you missed your "friend's" point.  He meant you guys need to shut up about the federal government coming in and regulating a bunch of stuff in people's lives.  So stop regulating guns, marijuana, and marriages.  Seems pretty consistent to me.

[Keystone Phil]

And an anecdote: I had a Paultard "friend" of mine lecture me the other day about how my side better shut up about social issues yet he has no problem slobbering over curly top's gun control filibuster. Typical ignoramus.

I think you missed your "friend's" point.  He meant you guys need to shut up about the federal government coming in and regulating a bunch of stuff in people's lives.  So stop regulating guns, marijuana, and marriages.  Seems pretty consistent to me.

I understand the point you're making but that wasn't totally his point.

His argument was that we lose when we discuss those issues. Period. Because "public opinion isn't on our side. People don't like us when we take conservative positions on those issues." But that gets thrown out the window once a social issue he and his side care about gets discussed. When there's a shift to the left on that issue, hey, we got to talk about that and stop it from happening. Mind you, he's still taking the more libertarian stance on the issue but he's contradicting the case he makes for giving up on social issues.

[memphis]

They should just go ahead and form a Christian dominionist party. They're not going to be happy with anything less.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Not gonna happen.

[Thomas D]

Just had a thought:

I happily voted for candidates who didn't agree with me on gay marriage in 2000, 2004 & 2008.

Why can't the SoCons do it in 2016?

[DC Al Fine]

Just had a thought:

I happily voted for candidates who didn't agree with me on gay marriage in 2000, 2004 & 2008.

Why can't the SoCons do it in 2016?

Because SSM is one of their most important issues.

[Mr. Morden]

Cross-posted from this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=171946.0

Like I said before, the GOP will gradually shift from an "offensive" posture on gay marriage (affirmatively trying to ban it) to a "defensive" posture.  The defensive posture consists of surrendering on the issue itself, but standing up against what they see as the ostracization of SSM opponents.  Now that SSM opponents are becoming a minority, the GOP will hold up cases where they claim people are being discriminated against for opposing SSM.  They'll treat it as a civil rights issue for SSM opponents.  As I explain in this post, this shift is already starting:

Even Maggie Gallagher of all people seems to be switching to this defensive posture:

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/22/175064250/as-support-for-gay-marriage-grows-an-opponent-looks-ahead

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The religious conservatives who continue to oppose SSM will complain loudly about the surrender for a while, but ultimately stick with the GOP, since they'll at least see the GOP as supporting them personally on this, even if they don't agree on the underlying issue of SSM.  And the shift will help cushion the blow to the GOP among swing voters, because they'll be shifting the debate from the underlying issue of SSM itself to the question of whether people should pay a price for their political beliefs.

In any case, the defensive posture will last for many years, until eventually the whole issue will be dropped because the number of people still opposed to SSM will become so small as to be electorally insignificant.

[memphis]

I think a good comparison is the battle over porn in the 1970s and 1980s. The churchy crowd was all aghast over porn, and conservative politicians were forever promising to do something about it. After about 1995 or so, nobody mentioned porn anymore. Not even to ask if it still hurt the conservatives' feelings.

[Indy Texas]

I have a lot of things to say about the involvement/shunning of social conservatives (like myself) within the GOP but I'd like to make one specific point here in response to a previous post: social issues encompass more than just "abortion/SSM stuff."

And an anecdote: I had a Paultard "friend" of mine lecture me the other day about how my side better shut up about social issues yet he has no problem slobbering over curly top's gun control filibuster. Typical ignoramus.

Social issues - don't dare mention them...until, you know, you realize you have an opinion on one of them and want to speak out. This is why the "Stop with the social issues!" crowd will never be successful and certainly won't take over the GOP.

At least the gun absolutists can base their argument on the Constitution and their interpretation of it rather than "thump the Bible" (Bill O'Reilly's words, not mine). The Constitution has the Second Amendment. The Constitution does not define marriage. The Constitution does not give people the right to stop others from having abortions. The Constitution does not establish Christianity, or, I'm sorry, "Judeo-Christian values" as the moral law of the land.

[King]

The GOP attempt to cast out social conservatives isn't going to help them. In an election without social issues, the left stands more to gain than the right.  There's far more poor Christians who voted against their interests than rich gays.

The Republicans need to moderate economically if they want to win.  They're out of the mainstream for any time period right now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And an anecdote: I had a Paultard "friend" of mine lecture me the other day about how my side better shut up about social issues yet he has no problem slobbering over curly top's gun control filibuster. Typical ignoramus.

I think you missed your "friend's" point.  He meant you guys need to shut up about the federal government coming in and regulating a bunch of stuff in people's lives.  So stop regulating guns, marijuana, and marriages.  Seems pretty consistent to me.

I understand the point you're making but that wasn't totally his point.

His argument was that we lose when we discuss those issues. Period. Because "public opinion isn't on our side. People don't like us when we take conservative positions on those issues." But that gets thrown out the window once a social issue he and his side care about gets discussed. When there's a shift to the left on that issue, hey, we got to talk about that and stop it from happening. Mind you, he's still taking the more libertarian stance on the issue but he's contradicting the case he makes for giving up on social issues.

The problem is one of depth, or lack thereof, and thus they ignore the importance nuances. Moderates ignoring nuance! Shocking!

It is especially the case when social issues get discussed in context of the almighty suburbs. Social issues embraced on a strategic basis helped empower the GOP in many of those suburban areas that were either ethnic white and/or working class. They werent used just to attract rural Democrats as it often assumed by these people.

On the other hand, if one constantly acknowledges the loss of younger generations in terms of the values and ideals of previous generations, then you are leaving yourself only two options. 1) Change that situation or 2) Concede and change the party. I can't for the life of me discover how a group of people who are disconnected with another group, are going to somehow comprehend the means by which a transformation can be effected amongst said group, if such is even possible to begin with. The only way for this to change is probably some kind of mass religious revival at some point, and shutting down the party and waiting for that situation (which may not happen at all), doesn't sound like a wise idea because there is too much at stake.

When confronted with two impossible options, you thus learn to make your own door number three. That is what needs to happen here, because defeat is in the cards for either of the first two.

[memphis]

The GOP attempt to cast out social conservatives isn't going to help them. In an election without social issues, the left stands more to gain than the right.  There's far more poor Christians who voted against their interests than rich gays.

The Republicans need to moderate economically if they want to win.  They're out of the mainstream for any time period right now.

There'd be no point in having a GOP if they moderated economically. Making the rich richer and the poor poorer is their entire raison d'etre.

[Torie]

Where would these people go?  They aren't going anywhere.

[DC Al Fine]

Where would these people go?  They aren't going anywhere.

They can stay home, they can stop volunteering and they can stop cutting cheques.

[Brittain33]

Where would these people go?  They aren't going anywhere.

They can stay home, they can stop volunteering and they can stop cutting cheques.

They still care about the Republicans' other issues.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Where would these people go?  They aren't going anywhere.

They can stay home, they can stop volunteering and they can stop cutting cheques.

All the better.

[Beezer]

I don't see them staying home either. Social conservatives and members of the Religious Right are also deeply conservative when it comes to economic matters. So they're not just brought to the polls by God and gays but also by guns, welfare, and the general size of government.