Republicans - what is your plan for staying competitive in the following states

[Non Swing Voter]

in about 12-16 years:

1) Virginia - assume (as the census does) that about 40% of the voting age population will reside in what is generally considered NOVA.  Also assume that minorities will jump from about 30% of voters to about 36-38% of voters as seems likely based on census projections.  Also assume that the southwestern portion of the state, which votes Republican in the greatest numbers, will continue to lose population.

2) Nevada - (I can't write a description like above because I simply don't know enough about the state, but lets assume Hispanics continue to grow as a percentage of the population and it gets more transplants from California - I think that's a fair assumption)

3) Colorado - (similar to Nevada)

4) Florida - (assume panhandle keeps trending Republican while the I-4 corridor continues to trend democrat)

ALTERNATIVELY:

If you cannot stay competitive in at least 3 of these states (which basically means you can't win under current electoral math) - what is your strategy for making up these votes?

BONUS QUESTION:

Which is a better strategy (if you can only pick one):

A) Stay competitive in all of these states

B) Ditch these states and try to readjust the map somewhere else... perhaps Minnesota + Iowa + Wisconsin + Michigan...

[IceSpear]

The GOP's strategy:

a) Keep the House indefinitely with egregious gerrymandering
b) Gain the Senate through lower turnout in midterm years and voter suppression laws
c) In order to gain the presidency, they'll simply need to wait until they got lucky with a GOP wave/Democratic scandal/economic collapse hitting at the exact best opportunity for them. Since they'll presumably hold Congress (see point A and B) they'd just need to wait until they're lucky enough for this to occur in order to ram their agenda down the throats of the country.

They have no intention of changing their message. The above will keep them competitive for at least the next two decades. After that, I have no clue what they do. Probably splinter off into factions.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

50 state strategy, let each state party do its own thing.

Avoid controversies at the national level that would undercut that and embrace a state's right's position where possible to further facilitate it and preserve unity.

[illegaloperation]

This is another strategy: rig the electoral college.

[DC Al Fine]

Adopt the Canadian Tories approach to winning over minorities:

1)Accept that Hispanics generally don't go for abortion/gay marriage social conservatism and adopt a "family first" approach. This would include lots of rhetoric about small business, hard working families, and insinuating that the Democrats are patronizing elitists.

2) Adopt big government conservatism with lots of targeted tax credits and allowances. Ex: Child care allowances. This meshes well with the rhetoric in #1.

3) Not sure how feasible this is in the American system, but adopt a much more disciplined communications strategy. Adopt a unified, disciplined message and stick to it. Try to avoid Akin moments.

[IceSpear]

This is another strategy: rig the electoral college.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot that one.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is the Republican plan for Wisconsin

1. Nominate far right lunatic for US Senate
2. Win

Moderation is way overrated.

[Mechaman]

I love how so far there is only three really serious answers to this question.  And funnily enough, two of them happen to be Republicans!

[Indy Texas]

Adopt the Canadian Tories approach to winning over minorities:

1)Accept that Hispanics generally don't go for abortion/gay marriage social conservatism and adopt a "family first" approach. This would include lots of rhetoric about small business, hard working families, and insinuating that the Democrats are patronizing elitists.

2) Adopt big government conservatism with lots of targeted tax credits and allowances. Ex: Child care allowances. This meshes well with the rhetoric in #1.

3) Not sure how feasible this is in the American system, but adopt a much more disciplined communications strategy. Adopt a unified, disciplined message and stick to it. Try to avoid Akin moments.

1) Rhetoric about hard working families? What kind of rhetoric? Talking about your party's cutting funding from the public schools their children attend? Or about reducing general revenue contributions to state universities, resulting in high tuition that those families often cannot afford? Or about treating the "evil public sector union workers" like pinatas when the reality is that a lot of Hispanics - particularly Hispanic women - would not be middle class were it not for their county and municipal government jobs. (What other job opportunities do you think there are for Latinas in rural South/West Texas?)

2) The people who write checks to the GOP are not your kind of conservative, Al. They don't care about "strengthening families." Only the useful idiots in the heartland care about that. The GOP's donors care about one thing - ensuring they pay as little tax as humanly possible. And the only way to do that is to "broaden the base and lower/flatten the rates" which means fewer deductions (which they will call "loopholes") and not more. Mitt Romney's 47% comment more or less cemented the belief that Republicans hate and disdain people who do not pay net federal income tax, and your suggestion would only increase the number of people in this category.

3) Not sure what to do about that. Todd Akin was only saying what he really felt and that is the problem. You could stop nominating people like him, but the sort of people who vote in GOP primaries tend to feel the same way he does.

[Non Swing Voter]

I love how so far there is only three really serious answers to this question.  And funnily enough, two of them happen to be Republicans!

Why is it funny that most of the serious answers are from Republicans?  The question was directed to Republicans... the rest of us probably don't really care, we just enjoy watching the GOP go down in flames in the most entertaining of ways.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Adopt the Canadian Tories approach to winning over minorities:

1)Accept that Hispanics generally don't go for abortion/gay marriage social conservatism and adopt a "family first" approach. This would include lots of rhetoric about small business, hard working families, and insinuating that the Democrats are patronizing elitists.

2) Adopt big government conservatism with lots of targeted tax credits and allowances. Ex: Child care allowances. This meshes well with the rhetoric in #1.

3) Not sure how feasible this is in the American system, but adopt a much more disciplined communications strategy. Adopt a unified, disciplined message and stick to it. Try to avoid Akin moments.

That would not work here by and large.

There was a lot of talk about taking a "Libertarian-Populist" approach over the summer and so forth but I haven't seen anyone really try to attempt it at all. That is probably where the greatest millege is, railing against the both big gov't but also big business to the extent that it is facilitated by the gravy train. Only Sarah Palin and a few others have come close to doing this and she lacks the discipline you mention in 3 to make it effective.

Big Gov't conservatism is dead. That is what Bush promised and it didn't work out to well for anybody. I also don't see Huckabee getting the nomination and he is the best chance for that to happen at this point, but he is far to social conservative.

[DC Al Fine]

Adopt the Canadian Tories approach to winning over minorities:

1)Accept that Hispanics generally don't go for abortion/gay marriage social conservatism and adopt a "family first" approach. This would include lots of rhetoric about small business, hard working families, and insinuating that the Democrats are patronizing elitists.

2) Adopt big government conservatism with lots of targeted tax credits and allowances. Ex: Child care allowances. This meshes well with the rhetoric in #1.

3) Not sure how feasible this is in the American system, but adopt a much more disciplined communications strategy. Adopt a unified, disciplined message and stick to it. Try to avoid Akin moments.

1) Rhetoric about hard working families? What kind of rhetoric? Talking about your party's cutting funding from the public schools their children attend? Or about reducing general revenue contributions to state universities, resulting in high tuition that those families often cannot afford? Or about treating the "evil public sector union workers" like pinatas when the reality is that a lot of Hispanics - particularly Hispanic women - would not be middle class were it not for their county and municipal government jobs. (What other job opportunities do you think there are for Latinas in rural South/West Texas?)

2) The people who write checks to the GOP are not your kind of conservative, Al. They don't care about "strengthening families." Only the useful idiots in the heartland care about that. The GOP's donors care about one thing - ensuring they pay as little tax as humanly possible. And the only way to do that is to "broaden the base and lower/flatten the rates" which means fewer deductions (which they will call "loopholes") and not more. Mitt Romney's 47% comment more or less cemented the belief that Republicans hate and disdain people who do not pay net federal income tax, and your suggestion would only increase the number of people in this category.

3) Not sure what to do about that. Todd Akin was only saying what he really felt and that is the problem. You could stop nominating people like him, but the sort of people who vote in GOP primaries tend to feel the same way he does.

1) It's rhetoric Indy, it doesn't need much content Here's an example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60OypDB3YfI

We ran a bunch of ads like that in the 2011 election; all with the tag line "Isn't it time we voted our values?" in Mandarin, Hindi etc. Admittedly this approach was designed for East/South Asians but it could be adapted for Hispanics.

2) As I've said before, the only thing keeping me in the GOP is abortion... Although I suggest your big bad 1%ers might be willing to trade a few tax credits for the presidency

3) Yeah, that's the toughest one. The Canadian system allows for a lot more influence from party HQ. Primarying an incumbent is basically impossible and the party can boot someone who's too unruly. It creates a different culture for politicians, that I'm not sure how to replicate in the States.

[Del Tachi]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Become the party known for promoting scientific research and other types of discretionary spending, especially defense, like we were during the 1950s.  Of course this represents a complete 180 from what the GOP is currently doing, but we should be able to assuage Tea Party elements if we promise to call for real entitlement reform if discretionary spending is allowed to grow at roughly the same rate as, or slightly faster than, GDP growth.  Northern Virginia's economic fate is so intricately tied to federal discretionary spending that voters there are going to support the party that supports government largess.  The GOP just needs to put a nice technocratic, Military-Industrial complex twist on it to contrast against the Democrats' "welfare state" style of big government.  Combine this with a strong law-and-order push in order to further swing suburban voters.  Not only will this help in NOVA, but also other highly-educated, wealthy places like the Research Triangle in NC, the I-35 corridor, and the Pacific Northwest.        

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Moderate ourselves and become more libertarian on social issues.  Change our position on gay marriage and drug legalization into one of "state's rights".  Other than that, what was detailed above should also work pretty well in NV/CO as there are a lot of military/research workers out West.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmmm...a law and order approach may be the best in the Sunshine State.  The retirees are actually Republican-voting, we just need something to convince all those suburban families in Vero Beach,  Kissimmee, and Winter Park to start voting for us >80%.  Stressing the GOP's commitment to safety and how the the Democrats are "soft on crime" may strike a tone there.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If we are able to pull-off what I say about Virginia (i.e., big government Republicanism), I think that plays quite well in places like NJ, NH, OR, and WA.  That's where I'm looking for the GOP to expand.

[Devils30]

I could see a 50/50 national election looking something along these lines:

[All Along The Watchtower]

Hoping as few people vote as possible.

[Devils30]

Everyone seems to expect Florida to stay slightly to the right but the census suggests otherwise. Many of those northern FL counties were about 80% white and 72-76% Romney. I can't see where the GOP has to go unless they get more black votes. As the GOP maxes out in that part of Florida, Dems will continue to gain in Orlando/Tampa and probably get to 65-70% in Dade as older Cubans die off. In addition, Obama was a fairly poor candidate for Palm Beach, Volusia, Flagler counties.

[Non Swing Voter]

Everyone seems to expect Florida to stay slightly to the right but the census suggests otherwise. Many of those northern FL counties were about 80% white and 72-76% Romney. I can't see where the GOP has to go unless they get more black votes. As the GOP maxes out in that part of Florida, Dems will continue to gain in Orlando/Tampa and probably get to 65-70% in Dade as older Cubans die off. In addition, Obama was a fairly poor candidate for Palm Beach, Volusia, Flagler counties.

Agreed.  The problem for the GOP is that they are trying to maximize their vote share among declining segments of the population, whereas Democrats are trying to maximize their vote share among increasing segments of the population.

Florida is a perfect example of this.  GOP maximizing the panhandle can only produce so many votes as they have maxed out the white vote which is not expanding, nor is the panhandle region expanding as a portion of the state.

In contrast, Democrats have been trying for years to maximize their vote share in Orlando and Tampa, two rapidly growing areas of the state with burgeoning minority populations. 

[Non Swing Voter]

I could see a 50/50 national election looking something along these lines:

I could see all of that happening except Pennsylvania...  Democrats simply get too big a margin in Philly and the inner burbs.  I don't see how that changes anytime soon.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I could see a 50/50 national election looking something along these lines:

I could see all of that happening except Pennsylvania...  Democrats simply get too big a margin in Philly and the inner burbs.  I don't see how that changes anytime soon.

Indeed.  The GOP has talked about PA for years.  What votes are they picking up out of the T that they don't already have?  SW PA has gone their direction and they still can't get all that close.  Moderation on a national level would be the only way to even SLOW DOWN the Philly 'burbs drift towards the Democrats. 

We're getting to a point where the national map just favors the Dems and that's that.  The GOP had a huge electoral advantage two separate times in the 20th Century; it's far from unprecedented. 

[Indy Texas]

They have no other option than to figure out a way to make themselves competitive in "big" states (>20 EVs). The only one they are guaranteed to win anymore is Texas. The only one they could reach for winning is Florida. But when they decided in the '90s to push forward with right-wing social issues positions and a hardcore anti-tax mentality, they gave up Illinois and California, which had been easily winnable for them up to that point. All they got out of this strategy was the short-term gain of barely winning two elections in the 2000s.

[The Free North]

This is another strategy: rig the electoral college.

What is wrong with you?

[greenforest32]

This is another strategy: rig the electoral college.

What is wrong with you?

It's quite true, Republicans have made no secret about it:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/pennsylvania-electoral-college-plan-could-backfire-on-g-o-p/

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168318.0

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/12/03/3007311/gop-plan-rig-electoral-college-republicans-rears-head-california-2/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TeePee4Prez]

I could see a 50/50 national election looking something along these lines:

I could see all of that happening except Pennsylvania...  Democrats simply get too big a margin in Philly and the inner burbs.  I don't see how that changes anytime soon.

Indeed.  The GOP has talked about PA for years.  What votes are they picking up out of the T that they don't already have?  SW PA has gone their direction and they still can't get all that close.  Moderation on a national level would be the only way to even SLOW DOWN the Philly 'burbs drift towards the Democrats. 

We're getting to a point where the national map just favors the Dems and that's that.  The GOP had a huge electoral advantage two separate times in the 20th Century; it's far from unprecedented. 

PA's issue for the Republicans is a candidate that can win over the Philly suburbs while winning the blue collar white areas like the Lackawanna/Lehigh Valleys and Northeast/South Philly.  As proven between the election results of 2008 and 2012, that will NEVER happen!  McCain's numbers were higher in the blue collar white areas but Romney snapped the trend in 2012 sharply in Bucks and Chester and modestly in Montgomery.  In other words, going with a populist McCain/Palin approach will get you blue collar whites, but turn off Philly suburbs.  Going with the "Yankee Prep School/Harvard Business" approach may be more tolerable in the Philly suburbs, but will anger just enough blue collar whites to the point they'll hold their noses and vote for a black candidate even though they didn't want to cause Romney pissed them off enough. 

That said I sincerely hope the GOP wastes more and more resources on PA in the future.  Gerrymandering and vote rigging are their only outs.

[TeePee4Prez]

Forgot to mention.  To even have A CHANCE at PA, the GOP will need to nominate Christie.

[Non Swing Voter]

This is another strategy: rig the electoral college.

What is wrong with you?

Aren't there numerous articles and stories written about how Republicans are selectively targeting states that Democrats win to change the electoral college rules.  I think Pennsylvania is one of them... it's kind of telling what the GOP thinks of its own prospects there...