Possible New GOP Coalitions

[Mechaman]

A "new GOP coalition?"

Not for years to come.

I am among those who believe the presidential election of 2008 was a realigning one favoring the Democrats.

Does anyone see anything in the Republican party of 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012, and continuing in 2013, that suggests the GOP is about to win over a new coalition?

If racism and xenophobia is to work like a charm nationally on a greater shift in white voters … well, that a coaltion for the GOP! It wouldn't be new. And, in all frankness, it's not about to happen. Practice that in states where its voters are prone to that type of thinking…and they can carry them beyond 21 percentage points, the ridiculous margins levels enjoyed by Mitt Romney in Arkansas and West Virginia, the types of states Romney would not have won had been his party's nominee in decades past.

Let me tell you a story about a time called the Roaring Twenties and about the dying days of the Democratic Party.. . . . . .

[Mechaman]

Yes it is actually quite possible.

What really needs to change is that the GOP needs to stop having a reactionary strategy and instead go for a more progressive strategy in regards to targeting voters.  Really, what they need to do is do what Howard Dean and crew started doing in 2006 onwards for the Democratic Party.
Yes I'm talking about a Fifty State Strategy.

Sure, this sounds absurd at first, but how many of you thought in 2008 that Obama would win in Indiana and North Carolina?  I argue, rather than look at purples states, the GOP starts doing campaigning in outright D states.  I mean serious campaigning.  Due to the resources of the party, and whether or not it decides to tone down the unpopular fringe elements, this might take several election cycles to come to fruition.  However, one day instead of Democrats just shifting money into Pennsylvania, Colorado, or Virginia they might find themselves (as crazy as this might sound) shifting money to Vermont.  Because believe it or not, there are still Republicans in Burlington, Nantucket, Bangor, and Portland.  Just like there are Democrats in Lubbock, Provo, Muskogee, and Grand Isle.

[izixs]

There are two parts to this problem: What is available, and what they're willing to go for. As it stands, the GOP's main problem is the second. They see roughly two options: generally conservative (guns, big defense department, religiousness, low taxes, moderate deregulation, and corporate welfare) and libertarian conservative (guns, small government, randian ideals, lower taxes, super deregulation, and selling stuff off). Its important to note that these are ideologies, not coalitions components. And there in lines the problem. Until they get out of that one or the other mentality, they're not going to evolve to remain competitive. They will eventually get there, but it might not be until one or the other path has 'won', at which point it will do its best to attain relevancy to enough demographic groups. Which of these two win depends a lot on how the country evolves in the next few decades. But each can potentially blossom into a new coalition.

General conservative ideology can lead to attracting 3rd and 4th generation immigrants, religious minorities, upper middle class folks (who think like they're super wealthy), and nationalistic types. Pretty much all of these require cutting across demographics of race, class, and age in order to endure.

Libertarian conservatives can latch onto youth trends in anti-corporatism by taking up a mantel of anti-establishment (both big business and government). Of course the claims to be supporting the little guy in the market will lead to policies that let the big guys run rampant but they should be nimble enough to side step the blame there. The libertarian conservative evolution can also cast off the biogrty stigma that the GOP has more easily (provided they avoid talking about the civil rights act), allowing them to gain support in more recent immigrant groups, especially those fleeing repressive regimes and corruption back in the old country. To make this work however, they need to be pro immigration all the way else they'll keep the stigmas of the older GOP with them. Basically for the libertarian conservatives to both win the fight and evolve, they need to get more racist folks to stop being so racist and to vote for them at the same time. This is also why they haven't won yet. And they won't win as long as they keep pandering to the tin foil hat types that keep the status quo going.

At the moment I'd say is even odds on which will win.

[pbrower2a]

The Republicans need to reach people that have been badly neglected in American politics in the last couple of decades: the poor. Poverty is a reality in America, but it has also been a Third Rail.

Republicans would have to abandon trickle-down economics, which is much like saying that alcoholics need to give up the booze.   

[Torie]

The Pubs need to explain better, and make some course corrections both in policy and emphasis, to more effectively make the case that their policies long term are in the best interests of the poor - and that they really give a damn about the poor.  It is all about the best means, and minimizing the collateral damage, or getting to the same end, that all sides claim that they want, even if they don't really in practice all too often. So I agree, sort of, for once, with Mr. pbrower above.

On this one I am kind of stubborn. I refuse to cede little, if any, ground to the Dems on this one.

[Sbane]

The Pubs need to explain better, and make some course corrections both in policy and emphasis, to more effectively make the case that their policies long term are in the best interests of the poor - and that they really give a damn about the poor.  It is all about the best means, and minimizing the collateral damage, or getting to the same end, that all sides claim that they want, even if they don't really in practice all too often. So I agree, sort of, for once, with Mr. pbrower above.

On this one I am kind of stubborn. I refuse to cede little, if any, ground to the Dems on this one.

Refusing to raise taxes and cut loopholes for the rich while wanting to cut Medicaid does not help the poor, no matter how you market it.

[Torie]

Sure, but I was focusing on the long term - you know, really improving the education of the poor rather than lip service, and money spent that does something other than improving teacher quality, improving long term economic growth, and so forth. Being indifferent or hostile to the social safety net, or seeming that way, with cuts in Medicaid that cannot reasonably be defended as somehow not entailing that the sick are not treated (because other means will be used, funding from somewhere else, reform of the system to avoid over treating, fraud and and so forth), certainly is not helpful.

[Sbane]

Sure, but I was focusing on the long term - you know, really improving the education of the poor rather than lip service, and money spent that does something other than improving teacher quality, improving long term economic growth, and so forth. Being indifferent or hostile to the social safety net, or seeming that way, with cuts in Medicaid that cannot reasonably be defended as somehow not entailing that the sick are not treated (because other means will be used, funding from somewhere else, reform of the system to avoid over treating, fraud and and so forth, certainly is not helpful.

Oh yeah, you know I agree with you about the schools but there is plenty else that the Republican party does and says that contradicts the interests of the poor.

[Franknburger]

The United States is becoming as secularized and as cosmopolitan as Western Europe, and the Republican Party will have to mold themselves in the shape of Europe's center-right parties to build their next coalition.

Just curious here, but what does a CDU or UMP coalition look like?

Your question made me think a bit. Germany, as a parliamentary system based on proportional representation does not build coalitions within, but among parties. As such, I first thought there is no point in answering your question.

On second thought, it might be instructive to sketch the German party landscape a bit and point out at coaltion options that are being discussed here.

CDU:

• Catholic roots-> moral values, but downplayed (no discussion of abortion, gradually moving towards acceptance of gay marriage, etc.). Family focus, gradually opening up towards new forms of partnerships (patchwork families) and single parents. Introduced a public financial allowance for parents that don't work during a child's first eighteen months, under the condition that each  parent takes at least three months off from work (which gained them quite some acclaim also from feminists). Otherwise on-going in-party struggle about child care (more early childhood kindergardens, or extending allowances for parents that are staying home with their children).
• Struggling to find a balance between national-conservative positions and its own tradition as immigrant party (catholic Polish pre WW I immigrants, post WW II refugees) -> now gradually moving towards liberalising immigration, also under labour market / demographic considerations
• Pensioneer's party: Trying to maintain current pension levels by putting most of the financial charges on Gen Xers, try to keep health care affordable and available to all,. Also implies strong law & order focus.
• Rural / small-town/ sub-urban, with white collar / public servants focus, even though reaching out considerably into the blue collar segments-> Focus on free trade, austerity / balanced budgets, (road) infrastructure development. No major social security reforms Moderate, but progressive income taxes. If tax increases are (deemed to be) required, they are carried out on the consumption side (VAT, tobacco, gasoline etc.).

SPD:

• Protestants (this may be astonishing, but take a look at the German electoral map from a 'normal' year, i.e. not 2009, and you can still easily recognise most of the borders drawn in 1648 after the War of Thirty Years): This implies in general more socially moderate to liberal positions
• Blue collar, with significant outreach into white collar and the public sector: Pro-union, maintain / expand social security, advocating higher top-level income taxes. Less focused (though not unconcerned about) balancing budgets. Traditionally pro-coal.
• Urban / sub-urban: Stronger focus on public service provision, public transport, but also in favour of major infrastructure projects. Quite some law & order focus.

They are what I tend to call the "Hillary Clinton / Joe Biden wing" of the Democrats.

Greens:

• Urban, college graduated: Focus on education, public transport, sceptical towards large infrastructure projects, privacy / data security / civil rights-minded.
• Female:Women's right, support for single mothers, facilitating the balance between motherhood and professional careers, etc. Also implies a strong focus on consumer protection and food safety.
• Second / third generation immigrants (especially from Turkey and the mid-East): Asylum rights, EU expansion, liberal immigration laws etc.

Essentially the Obama 2008 primaries wing of the Democrats.

Linke: Conglomerate of a regional party for East Germany, and a left-wing party in the West. The East German wing has quite some similarity to Appalachia DINOs, but a higher relevance for the German balance of power.

FDP: Traditionally a similar profile as the Greens, now mainly a small-town and small-business / self-employed party. Economically and socially liberal, focus on lower taxes, small government, but also civil rights, privacy, gay marriage. They call themselves liberals, you would call them libertarian.

Newly emerging are the Pirates, which are essentially a younger and more male version of the predominantly Gen X and quite female-dominated Greens.

---
The currently governing CDU / FDP coalition, which I see as a socially and economically moderated version of the Republicans, will definitely struggle and most likely not regain their majority in the upcoming elections. Neither will SPD & Greens (they may eventually form a coalition with the Linke, but that is also quite unlikely for a variety of reasons). As such, the main question is whether Germany will after the upcoming elections have a CDU / SPD (as from 2005-2009) or a CDU / Green coalition (as in Hamburg over the same period). 

As far as I, as an European, can tell, the Republican's options are along the same lines. They definitely have to get more urban and socially moderate  Beyond that, they may either go "social-democrat" (blue collar), which would imply moderating positions on budget balancing, social security / health care etc., or they may go "green" (postgraduate / second-generation immigrants / female), which would mean doing away with anti-intellectualism, pro-coal policies, anti immigrant rhetoric and the like. The "Linle" option (Appalachia) has already been tried but was obviously insufficient.

For the "green" option, Arnold Schwarzenegger's approaches in California might be worth looking into in a bit more detail.

[TNF]

The best solution, if you ask me, is for the Republican Party to ditch neoliberalism as a dominant force and adopt a nationalist, protectionist strategy. That means no more defining 'Americanism' as 'white only' and adopting Latino immigrants as full Americans. Working towards immigration reform will not itself do this for the Republicans - they have to actively pursue policies which benefit Latinos. That means ditching their opposition to a strong welfare state in favor of a conservative welfare state - something like Nixon's Family Assistance Program, or expanding the EITC rather than raising the minimum wage, etc. It means not going after minority-business loans, and working to create a black and Latino middle class that would, theoretically, support them, and it means equalizing education funding at the expense of the Democrats' neoliberal strategy for education.

Republicans, in a word, have to oppose neoliberalism, but not from the left. They would be successful in offering an escape from neoliberalism from the right. They don't need to become more Thatcherite or go down the path of the new far-right parties in Europe: they need to emulate France's Gaullist parties.

[Person Man]

The United States is becoming as secularized and as cosmopolitan as Western Europe, and the Republican Party will have to mold themselves in the shape of Europe's center-right parties to build their next coalition.

Just curious here, but what does a CDU or UMP coalition look like?

Your question made me think a bit. Germany, as a parliamentary system based on proportional representation does not build coalitions within, but among parties. As such, I first thought there is no point in answering your question.

On second thought, it might be instructive to sketch the German party landscape a bit and point out at coaltion options that are being discussed here.

CDU:

• Catholic roots-> moral values, but downplayed (no discussion of abortion, gradually moving towards acceptance of gay marriage, etc.). Family focus, gradually opening up towards new forms of partnerships (patchwork families) and single parents. Introduced a public financial allowance for parents that don't work during a child's first eighteen months, under the condition that each  parent takes at least three months off from work (which gained them quite some acclaim also from feminists). Otherwise on-going in-party struggle about child care (more early childhood kindergardens, or extending allowances for parents that are staying home with their children).
• Struggling to find a balance between national-conservative positions and its own tradition as immigrant party (catholic Polish pre WW I immigrants, post WW II refugees) -> now gradually moving towards liberalising immigration, also under labour market / demographic considerations
• Pensioneer's party: Trying to maintain current pension levels by putting most of the financial charges on Gen Xers, try to keep health care affordable and available to all,. Also implies strong law & order focus.
• Rural / small-town/ sub-urban, with white collar / public servants focus, even though reaching out considerably into the blue collar segments-> Focus on free trade, austerity / balanced budgets, (road) infrastructure development. No major social security reforms Moderate, but progressive income taxes. If tax increases are (deemed to be) required, they are carried out on the consumption side (VAT, tobacco, gasoline etc.).

SPD:

• Protestants (this may be astonishing, but take a look at the German electoral map from a 'normal' year, i.e. not 2009, and you can still easily recognise most of the borders drawn in 1648 after the War of Thirty Years): This implies in general more socially moderate to liberal positions
• Blue collar, with significant outreach into white collar and the public sector: Pro-union, maintain / expand social security, advocating higher top-level income taxes. Less focused (though not unconcerned about) balancing budgets. Traditionally pro-coal.
• Urban / sub-urban: Stronger focus on public service provision, public transport, but also in favour of major infrastructure projects. Quite some law & order focus.

They are what I tend to call the "Hillary Clinton / Joe Biden wing" of the Democrats.

Greens:

• Urban, college graduated: Focus on education, public transport, sceptical towards large infrastructure projects, privacy / data security / civil rights-minded.
• Female:Women's right, support for single mothers, facilitating the balance between motherhood and professional careers, etc. Also implies a strong focus on consumer protection and food safety.
• Second / third generation immigrants (especially from Turkey and the mid-East): Asylum rights, EU expansion, liberal immigration laws etc.

Essentially the Obama 2008 primaries wing of the Democrats.

Linke: Conglomerate of a regional party for East Germany, and a left-wing party in the West. The East German wing has quite some similarity to Appalachia DINOs, but a higher relevance for the German balance of power.

FDP: Traditionally a similar profile as the Greens, now mainly a small-town and small-business / self-employed party. Economically and socially liberal, focus on lower taxes, small government, but also civil rights, privacy, gay marriage. They call themselves liberals, you would call them libertarian.

Newly emerging are the Pirates, which are essentially a younger and more male version of the predominantly Gen X and quite female-dominated Greens.

---
The currently governing CDU / FDP coalition, which I see as a socially and economically moderated version of the Republicans, will definitely struggle and most likely not regain their majority in the upcoming elections. Neither will SPD & Greens (they may eventually form a coalition with the Linke, but that is also quite unlikely for a variety of reasons). As such, the main question is whether Germany will after the upcoming elections have a CDU / SPD (as from 2005-2009) or a CDU / Green coalition (as in Hamburg over the same period).  

As far as I, as an European, can tell, the Republican's options are along the same lines. They definitely have to get more urban and socially moderate  Beyond that, they may either go "social-democrat" (blue collar), which would imply moderating positions on budget balancing, social security / health care etc., or they may go "green" (postgraduate / second-generation immigrants / female), which would mean doing away with anti-intellectualism, pro-coal policies, anti immigrant rhetoric and the like. The "Linle" option (Appalachia) has already been tried but was obviously insufficient.

For the "green" option, Arnold Schwarzenegger's approaches in California might be worth looking into in a bit more detail.

So, basically pursue an "Ohio" strategy (CDU-SPD) of encouraging people to marry, have children, protect themselves and respect those who protect them ahead of any civil rights concerns, but being less aggressive against those who rely on the law and public funds to protect them from market uncertainty and extra taxes on those who can afford to pay them. The Government should foster innovation through military research.

This is what a successful map of that strategy would look like.

Basically, its a Huckabee/Bush type campaign

and the CDU/Green Coalition- basically a "Colorado" strategy of claiming that the less Government the better (even when it means a slight reduction of security) and that each community should create its own standards and have its own values and the only goal of the Federal Government is to allow for that possibility. The Government should foster innovation through public-private competition.

So, probably the former direction is more likely because it targets more big states.

[Franknburger]

Great translation of my post into the US context, DC Al Fine!

I completely agree - the 'social democrat' option would rather target the rust belt, the 'green' option go after the West Coast & Rockies. And, of course, the 'social democrat' option has, at least on the short run, a higher vote potential. In Germany, CDU & SPD combine some 65% of votes, CDU & Greens slightly below 55%.

The other question is: Which of the two strategies bears less risk of alienating the existing base? They won't be happy, anyway (the CDU's move towards the center is irritating quite a lot of their traditional voters), but they may, at least for some election cycles, disgruntingly vote for the 'lesser evil' (as will happen in Germany this autumn). In other words: Will it hurt the Republicans more if they compromise on health care and budget issues, or if they do away with pro-coal policies and propose a rise in fuel taxes as alternative to increasing income tax?

As to your maps: Under a 'social democrat' scenario, which would inevitably mean the Democrats going 'greener', I think states like Wisconsin, North Carolina and Montana should at least be coloured grey, if not mildly red. I also wonder whether Texas has not become so 'techie' now that a 'green' strategy (especially if it focuses on natural gas as short-term option to reduce CO² emissions) is safer  there for the GOP than going social-democrat.

[opebo]

Yeah, obviously its more racism/fear/verging-on-fascism and lightening up on the liberalism (even if the latter is just a fake-out).

The only way is to get up around 62-63% of the whitevote.

[Franknburger]

Another important issue I forgot to mention: The CDU is traditionally a Western (in the West-East Germany sense), southern-catholic, male-dominated party. Angela Merkel isn't anything of these: She is East German, northern-protestant, female. That's a quite important element of her success.

Along these lines, the next GOP presidential candidate should probably be female, from New England, the upper Mid-West or Oregon/ Washington, and ideally have either some Latino or Irish ancestry. [Yeah, I know, they tried that with Sarah Palin already, but that went wrong for a number of quite specific reasons ..]

[Person Man]

Another important issue I forgot to mention: The CDU is traditionally a Western (in the West-East Germany sense), southern-catholic, male-dominated party. Angela Merkel isn't anything of these: She is East German, northern-protestant, female. That's a quite important element of her success.

Along these lines, the next GOP presidential candidate should probably be female, from New England, the upper Mid-West or Oregon/ Washington, and ideally have either some Latino or Irish ancestry. [Yeah, I know, they tried that with Sarah Palin already, but that went wrong for a number of quite specific reasons ..]

....Kelly Ayotte? ...Susanna Martinez?  Basically a female politician that is about as conservative as W, but you would think that they are non-conservatives.

[Franknburger]

Another important issue I forgot to mention: The CDU is traditionally a Western (in the West-East Germany sense), southern-catholic, male-dominated party. Angela Merkel isn't anything of these: She is East German, northern-protestant, female. That's a quite important element of her success.

Along these lines, the next GOP presidential candidate should probably be female, from New England, the upper Mid-West or Oregon/ Washington, and ideally have either some Latino or Irish ancestry. [Yeah, I know, they tried that with Sarah Palin already, but that went wrong for a number of quite specific reasons ..]

....Kelly Ayotte? ...Susanna Martinez?  Basically a female politician that is about as conservative as W, but you would think that they are non-conservatives.

I see, you have understood the concept.

However, never underestimate a women's adaptability. Merkel run her 2002 campaign on a pretty market-radical platform, including things like introducing a flat income tax or changing Germany's health insurance system from current income-based premiums to a flat payment per person. After looking like possibly gaining the absolute majority across most of the summer, the CDU finally came in  at just 35.2 %, and had to get into a coalition with the SPD. That was the end of her market-radicalism - now she is pressing her reluctant party and the even more reluctant FDP for increased coverage and raises of minimum wages (they currently only apply to sectors in which unionisation is below a certain threshold), and has just been putting forward a proposal to limit housing rents, which are skyrocketing in some metro areas . In addition,, madam "balanced budget" is proposing all kinds of goodies, at a total price tag of 28 billion Euros, to the electorate.

Same thing with nuclear energy - she revoked the red-green plan to gradually phase out nuclear energy until 2022, saw her popularity dump and the Greens skyrocketing to almost 30% in the polls, and used the next-best occasion (Fukushima) for a 180 degree turn (immediate closure of 6 nuclear plants, the other ones to be closed by 2018). [She probably also read the signs on the wall that the Federal courts, which had already been called upon by SPD and Greens, would most likely demand massive re-enforcement of existing plants, especially as concerns protection against airplane crashes, which would be technically and/ or commercially unfeasible.]

[Person Man]

What are they replacing the fission plants with? Fossil Fuels? Bio Fuels? Wouldn't that be an even less green alternative? Doesn't it go-

Brown
Coal
Oil
Methane
Nuclear
Solar/Wind/Water/Vulcanism
Green

Are they trying to expedite the thermonuclear demo plant in France?

[Franknburger]

What are they replacing the fission plants with? Fossil Fuels? Bio Fuels? Wouldn't that be an even less green alternative? Doesn't it go-

Brown
Coal
Oil
Methane
Nuclear
Solar/Wind/Water/Vulcanism
Green

Are they trying to expedite the thermonuclear demo plant in France?

Pretty good question, because this will be one of the key issues for the upcoming elections.

Essentially, as  I have said, the SPD has always been pro-coal, and pushed through a number of lignite power plants when in state governments - a main reason for the collapse of the first red-green government in North-Rhine Westphalia some years ago. There are also the old Lignite power plants in former East Germany, modernised during the "Reconstruction East" in the 1990s - so quite a stock of coal power plants (in fact more than is needed).
The 1998-2005 red-green government promoted the introduction of renewables, with a mix of quite intelligent and pretty stupid instruments (save me from going into detail), which took some time to take off, but then boomed, so Germany now has about 18% renewables share (up from below 3% by the turn of the century). Solar is a disaster (we are too far north for it to be feasible except for a few corners like the Upper Rhine), was heavily subsidised, and when the subsidies where cut some one-and-a-half year ago, demand and with it various domestic solar panel manufacturers collapsed. Wind, however works quite well and is economical on the coasts and low mountains (thermic winds), wind power generators have also become a major export commodity, but we are now running into problems as concerns the power grid layout and peak buffering. Biomass is the latest boom, fuelled by EU subsidies to biomass farmers, but has beyond that still a lot of unused potential (manure, old waste dumps, possibly also wastewater treatment, etc.). All in all, the renewables boom allowed the government to shut down the 6 reactors without running into supply problems.
Ideas for the future include natural gas (Russia, Norway), construction of an underwater power transmission line to use Norway's excess of water power, and a number of geothermal projects in the South. There was a major project to set up solar plants in the Sahara for power export to Central Europe, but that seems to have got stuck due to security concerns.  More down-to earth is co-generation - VW, e.g.,  has used their Diesel technology to develop a small-scale system for combined heat and power generation (oil or natural gas) in individual apartment blocks.

A main issue, however, is reducing demand. High electricity prices, and things like energy labelling of household appliances, energy-saving bulbs (including street lighting) etc.  have already brought down demand considerably. Current work is on introducing "intelligent power"  -prices that vary according to demand and supply, automatic transmission of that price information to the consumers, and programmable interfaces within the appliances. Essentially, you tell your washing machine in the evening at which price it shall start washing, and find out the next morning whether that price has been reached or not . The idea is to smoothen out demand peaks, and the supply fluctuation that some renewables inevitably have.

All in all, very much work in progress and a lot of  "trial and error", but that is the way innovation is generated and a competitive edge on world markets is gained.

[All Along The Watchtower]

In terms of religious demographics, the Republican Party would be wise, over the long-term, to reach out to at least some of the members of the fastest-growing religious group in the American population-the "Nones." (Note: this group is NOT the same as atheists/agnostics, who IIRC, are pretty overwhelmingly Dem now-for understandable reasons, of course-but are too small a group to make much of an impact). How they do that, I'm not sure.

Beyond that, the GOP needs to improve its margins among Catholics (and not just white non-Hispanic Catholics...) and mainline Protestants. A party that is overwhelmingly dominated by White evangelical Protestants in general, because of the way that many evangelicals'(particularly the political ones )  aggressive and frankly, obnoxious style turns off non-evangelicals, will not be able to reach out to much of the population. Furthermore, the dogmatic, rigid beliefs of many evangelical Protestants (and the hypocrisy of many megachurch pastors ) also turn people away from an increasingly evangelical-dominated Republican Party. Finally, white evangelicals are declining as a share of the electorate.

Beyond this, I'm not sure what else the GOP can do. It's in a position where it needs to turn out both "the base" in large numbers while at the same time, not alienate "swing" voters.

[Person Man]

In terms of religious demographics, the Republican Party would be wise, over the long-term, to reach out to at least some of the members of the fastest-growing religious group in the American population-the "Nones." (Note: this group is NOT the same as atheists/agnostics, who IIRC, are pretty overwhelmingly Dem now-for understandable reasons, of course-but are too small a group to make much of an impact). How they do that, I'm not sure.

Beyond that, the GOP needs to improve its margins among Catholics (and not just white non-Hispanic Catholics...) and mainline Protestants. A party that is overwhelmingly dominated by White evangelical Protestants in general, because of the way that many evangelicals'(particularly the political ones )  aggressive and frankly, obnoxious style turns off non-evangelicals, will not be able to reach out to much of the population. Furthermore, the dogmatic, rigid beliefs of many evangelical Protestants (and the hypocrisy of many megachurch pastors ) also turn people away from an increasingly evangelical-dominated Republican Party. Finally, white evangelicals are declining as a share of the electorate.

Beyond this, I'm not sure what else the GOP can do. It's in a position where it needs to turn out both "the base" in large numbers while at the same time, not alienate "swing" voters.

You mean "stop being Republicans"?

[Emperor Charles V]

Yes it is actually quite possible.

What really needs to change is that the GOP needs to stop having a reactionary strategy and instead go for a more progressive strategy in regards to targeting voters.  Really, what they need to do is do what Howard Dean and crew started doing in 2006 onwards for the Democratic Party.
Yes I'm talking about a Fifty State Strategy.

Sure, this sounds absurd at first, but how many of you thought in 2008 that Obama would win in Indiana and North Carolina?  I argue, rather than look at purples states, the GOP starts doing campaigning in outright D states.  I mean serious campaigning.  Due to the resources of the party, and whether or not it decides to tone down the unpopular fringe elements, this might take several election cycles to come to fruition.  However, one day instead of Democrats just shifting money into Pennsylvania, Colorado, or Virginia they might find themselves (as crazy as this might sound) shifting money to Vermont.  Because believe it or not, there are still Republicans in Burlington, Nantucket, Bangor, and Portland.  Just like there are Democrats in Lubbock, Provo, Muskogee, and Grand Isle.

I completely agree with you. That's what the Republicans have to do in order to win elections. There are many "blue states" that they can flip if they tried including Maine, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Michigan, New Jersey and New Mexico. They are already flipping Pennsylvania and at the rate it is going, it will soon become a lean-republican and maybe even solid republican state.

As for coalitions, the best way for Republicans to win elections is not to create our own coalition but break the Democratic one. That means start winning minorities fast. With 45% of the Hispanic vote and 15-20% of the African American vote, the Republicans could easily win elections now and perhaps even pull landslides.

[Person Man]

Look at any thread around this time in 2005 and replace "Democrat" with "Republican". Hell, I was convinced, at least until after the 2006 elections, that the path back for Democrats was to basically say "me too" in debates except for Iraq, Abortion and Taxes.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Look at any thread around this time in 2005 and replace "Democrat" with "Republican". Hell, I was convinced, at least until after the 2006 elections, that the path back for Democrats was to basically say "me too" in debates except for Iraq, Abortion and Taxes.

Look at how the party's shifted since the 1980's. That's precisely been their strategy. Perhaps an actual left will exist some day.