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

[Non Swing Voter]

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

This and the post above are spot on.  It is also demonstrative of the GOP's bigger problem.  How do they win upper Midwest states while staying competitive in the new battlegrounds like Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, etc...?

To win Michigan for instance, they will have to drive up social conservative rhetoric to bring up their margins in the rural areas while hoping it doesn't impact them among moderates... I'm sure they assume they'll lose blacks no matter what but saying they are anti gay marriage shouldn't make the black vote any more democrat in their minds.

At the same time, how do they hold onto a state like Colorado which is getting really liberal when they take those kinds of positions.

The problem for Republicans is the map is shifting in the Democrat's favor so they have to win combinations of states that have really different electorates, whereas Democrats only have to win a few of these states. 

Additionally, democrats have proven much better at coalition building.

[IceSpear]

I'm probably going to be blasted as a RINO for this, but whatever. The conservative base(evangelicals, gun nuts, 1%ers) doesn’t win us elections, it’s moderates and independents who do. If our margins fall in deep red states, it will be made up by winning swing states(and thus, we win the election). So screw the base.

Social Issues
Complete 180 on gay marriage, make it about strong families and individual rights.

Endorse medical marijuana, leave recreational weed up to states, while enforcing drug laws on hard drugs. The catch: promise to treat drug addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal one. And lighten up the penalties.

Endorse minor gun control. Stop letting Democrats steal our "common-sense" thunder. Stricter background checks, more educational/training requirements, stricter penalties for not securing weapons properly. Portray the Democrats as wanting to confiscate guns while we come off as the “common-sense protectors” instead of NRA reactionaries.

On the environment, endorse stricter pollution controls. Climate change debate aside, pollution affects everyone, and no Republican or Democrat likes their health and safety threatend.

Continue to promote merit and economic affirmative action over arbitrary and now-unnecessary race-based affirmative action.

Abortion: Become pro-PREVENTION, not so much pro-choice. Promote sex education. Allow abortion up to 6 months with few restrictions. Allow it in cases or rape, incest, or to save the mother.

On illegal immigration, endorse the DREAM Act for the children of illegal immigrants. But for adult illegals, give them permanent green-card amnesty and require back-tax payments. Secure the border.

On education, let’s to an ENDA revamp: raise standards for public schools & teachers, stop pushing private school choice crap and focus on improving public schools and give public-school choice. Provide more money for scholarships/grants and research. Focus heavily on STEM.

Economic Issues

Accept that the financial sector needs to be regulated heavily. Oh some donors' feelings are hurt? You can have your money or your votes, screw Wall Street. They're the ones crashing the economy, anyways.

Instead, get the government off of small and mid-sized businesses backs, as well as manufacturers. This should actually play really well with both the electorate and the economy IRL.

Embrace all forms of energy, including renewables. Raise MPG standards on automobiles. Educate people about nuclear power. Sign a Canada-US Energy Pact or something.

Control the growth of spending and taxes. That's pretty simple stuff.

Stop promoting free trade agreements with 3rd world countries we can’t compete with, and promote free trade with other developed nations. A Canada-US-EU trade block would suffice.

Foreign Policy

Stop scaring people away with GWB-style talk and actions.

Steal Obama’s covert targeted killing scheme as the way to combat terrorism. Embrace multilateralism as preserving American power while also getting other countries to share the burden.

*CUT* defense spending. It’s our 3rd-largest expense and a huge driver of deficits. What good is our military if we have to borrow to fund it? And anyways, there’s too much waste and inefficiency. Close like half of our overseas bases.

TL;DR: Become permissive on social issues and make the economic policy about being more efficient and effective. Go GHWB. Be moderate.

To ideological purists: it’s better to win elections, and enact a moderately-conservative agenda, than to push ideological purity and lose elections to liberal Democrats.

This is basically just copy and pasting the Democratic Party platform though. The only way that would work is if the Dems moved hard left to compensate (sort of the reverse of the current political environment where Dems are moving right and Republicans are moving hard right, even though it's the Dems who are winning elections).

If the GOP actually did this, a new right wing party would start and the GOP would get 3rd place in most elections.

[DC Al Fine]

This is basically just copy and pasting the Democratic Party platform though. The only way that would work is if the Dems moved hard left to compensate (sort of the reverse of the current political environment where Dems are moving right and Republicans are moving hard right, even though it's the Dems who are winning elections).

If the GOP actually did this, a new right wing party would start and the GOP would get 3rd place in most elections.

Not really. It's capturing the middle.

The Democratic Party is winning because they have captured the middle since 1992.

Republicans captured the middle 1968-1988. The demise of the USSR eliminated Communism as a uniting factor withing the Republican Party(which had a massive moderate wing), leaving them with divisive social issues as their basic platform. Since then(with the exception of 2004), the focus has been domestic, and that's why Democrats won the popular vote in the other 5 elections. Clinton, Gore, and Obama have all been moderately liberal and the New Democrat brand is very popular.

Polling has shown that people view the GOP as extreme, out of touch, too conservative, and a party of rich old white men. 1988 was the last election in which Republicans performed well with blacks, inner suburbs, the working class, and in cities.

Quite a bit of what I posted is too conservative for liberal Democrats, but acceptable to moderate Dems/Indies/Repubs.

You're right about the GOP's image problems, but that still doesn't address Icespear's point. You still need to give the socons and free marketeers a reason to vote for the GOP. The platform you suggested, especially on the social side of things basically guarantees a 3rd party candidacy from someone like Huckabee or Santorum. 

[IceSpear]

This is basically just copy and pasting the Democratic Party platform though. The only way that would work is if the Dems moved hard left to compensate (sort of the reverse of the current political environment where Dems are moving right and Republicans are moving hard right, even though it's the Dems who are winning elections).

If the GOP actually did this, a new right wing party would start and the GOP would get 3rd place in most elections.

Not really. It's capturing the middle.

The Democratic Party is winning because they have captured the middle since 1992.

Republicans captured the middle 1968-1988. The demise of the USSR eliminated Communism as a uniting factor withing the Republican Party(which had a massive moderate wing), leaving them with divisive social issues as their basic platform. Since then(with the exception of 2004), the focus has been domestic, and that's why Democrats won the popular vote in the other 5 elections. Clinton, Gore, and Obama have all been moderately liberal and the New Democrat brand is very popular.

Polling has shown that people view the GOP as extreme, out of touch, too conservative, and a party of rich old white men. 1988 was the last election in which Republicans performed well with blacks, inner suburbs, the working class, and in cities.

Quite a bit of what I posted is too conservative for liberal Democrats, but acceptable to moderate Dems/Indies/Repubs.

Yes, the Democrats are winning the middle because they're clearly the palatable choice between center-right vs. far right. But if the GOP abandoned and reversed their rightward drift and adopted that platform, you'd have two center-right parties with neutered liberal/tea party wings that have no impact. So what would be the point for tea partiers to vote? Liberals would still vote because we're used to having to vote center-right just to stop the GOP, but the tea partiers are used to exerting their full control over a political party. They're not going to disappear into the night, and they WOULD start a 3rd party in this scenario, which would immediately destroy any hopes of the GOP winning, and most likely give them 3rd place in most states.

[IceSpear]

This is basically just copy and pasting the Democratic Party platform though. The only way that would work is if the Dems moved hard left to compensate (sort of the reverse of the current political environment where Dems are moving right and Republicans are moving hard right, even though it's the Dems who are winning elections).

If the GOP actually did this, a new right wing party would start and the GOP would get 3rd place in most elections.

Not really. It's capturing the middle.

The Democratic Party is winning because they have captured the middle since 1992.

Republicans captured the middle 1968-1988. The demise of the USSR eliminated Communism as a uniting factor withing the Republican Party(which had a massive moderate wing), leaving them with divisive social issues as their basic platform. Since then(with the exception of 2004), the focus has been domestic, and that's why Democrats won the popular vote in the other 5 elections. Clinton, Gore, and Obama have all been moderately liberal and the New Democrat brand is very popular.

Polling has shown that people view the GOP as extreme, out of touch, too conservative, and a party of rich old white men. 1988 was the last election in which Republicans performed well with blacks, inner suburbs, the working class, and in cities.

Quite a bit of what I posted is too conservative for liberal Democrats, but acceptable to moderate Dems/Indies/Repubs.

You're right about the GOP's image problems, but that still doesn't address Icespear's point. You still need to give the socons and free marketeers a reason to vote for the GOP. The platform you suggested, especially on the social side of things basically guarantees a 3rd party candidacy from someone like Huckabee or Santorum. 

Exactly. This would be a good idea for the GOP IF the Dems went far left and started to get controlled by the Dennis Kucinich/Cynthia McKinney types, but they're still firmly in control of the moderate wing. So why would moderates abandon one moderate party for another moderate party? The GOP would have little to gain and a lot to lose (that being, their huge right wing base).

The huge right wing base in America is why the GOP is still a relevant national party and can get in the 40s in the popular vote. It takes a coalition of moderates and liberals to hold them off, and sometimes even that isn't enough. If the GOP abandons their enormous base that gives them ~40% nationally just for showing up to try to peel off some moderates, they're playing with fire. That's why people like McCain/Romney etc. are/were in such tough spots. They can't afford to blow off the people giving them the vast majority of their votes, but they also can't afford to ignore moderates.

As of right now, the GOP is probably better off just focusing on their right wing base and hoping the political climate carries enough moderates to their side to give them a win (the 2010 model).

[IceSpear]

This is basically just copy and pasting the Democratic Party platform though. The only way that would work is if the Dems moved hard left to compensate (sort of the reverse of the current political environment where Dems are moving right and Republicans are moving hard right, even though it's the Dems who are winning elections).

If the GOP actually did this, a new right wing party would start and the GOP would get 3rd place in most elections.

Not really. It's capturing the middle.

The Democratic Party is winning because they have captured the middle since 1992.

Republicans captured the middle 1968-1988. The demise of the USSR eliminated Communism as a uniting factor withing the Republican Party(which had a massive moderate wing), leaving them with divisive social issues as their basic platform. Since then(with the exception of 2004), the focus has been domestic, and that's why Democrats won the popular vote in the other 5 elections. Clinton, Gore, and Obama have all been moderately liberal and the New Democrat brand is very popular.

Polling has shown that people view the GOP as extreme, out of touch, too conservative, and a party of rich old white men. 1988 was the last election in which Republicans performed well with blacks, inner suburbs, the working class, and in cities.

Quite a bit of what I posted is too conservative for liberal Democrats, but acceptable to moderate Dems/Indies/Repubs.

Yes, the Democrats are winning the middle because they're clearly the palatable choice between center-right vs. far right. But if the GOP abandoned and reversed their rightward drift and adopted that platform, you'd have two center-right parties with neutered liberal/tea party wings that have no impact. So what would be the point for tea partiers to vote? Liberals would still vote because we're used to having to vote center-right just to stop the GOP, but the tea partiers are used to exerting their full control over a political party. They're not going to disappear into the night, and they WOULD start a 3rd party in this scenario, which would immediately destroy any hopes of the GOP winning, and most likely give them 3rd place in most states.

The Democrats are not center-right. I'm assuming you're a liberal, yes? Well then, yeah, the Dems seem center-right to you. They're definitely center-left with Obama, to me at least, and to much of America.

But I guess this is a perspective issue then.

[IceSpear]

And where did you get those from, may I ask?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

The fact that people see Obama/Democrats as anything but center-right just reinforces the rightward shift of US politics.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

And where did you get those from, may I ask?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

The fact that people see Obama/Democrats as anything but center-right just reinforces the rightward shift of US politics.

Here's the thing: It doesn't matter what this website says about Obama/Democrats/Republicans. It doesn't matter what you or I think about them. What matters is the American people think that Obama is a (-1,1), Romney is a (3,1), Santorum is a (5, 4), and Gary Johnson is a (4, -6).

That's what I based my proposals off of. Anyways, we're off topic now.

[IceSpear]

And where did you get those from, may I ask?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

The fact that people see Obama/Democrats as anything but center-right just reinforces the rightward shift of US politics.

Here's the thing: It doesn't matter what this website says about Obama/Democrats/Republicans. It doesn't matter what you or I think about them. What matters is the American people think that Obama is a (-1,1), Romney is a (3,1), Santorum is a (5, -4), and Gary Johnson is a (4, 6).

That's what I based my proposals off of. Anyways, we're off topic now.

In that case, ideology makes no difference, so why change your platform? Just push the Overton window to the point that Ted Cruz is considered a centrist. Would that not be a better strategy than overhauling an entire platform?

[DC Al Fine]

You're right about the GOP's image problems, but that still doesn't address Icespear's point. You still need to give the socons and free marketeers a reason to vote for the GOP. The platform you suggested, especially on the social side of things basically guarantees a 3rd party candidacy from someone like Huckabee or Santorum. 

GUYS: the point of this topic is to stay competitive across the nation, not appeal to the hyper-conservative base. Moderates outnumber conservatives; independents are more important than pure Republican turnout. The GOP would actually have to become center-left for a serious right-wing challenge.


This was just a vague set of ideas on how to become competitive. If SoCons staying home in Alabama and Wyoming means the GOP wins *only* 55% instead of cracking 60%, who care so long as that 2-3% shift in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado wins those states?

The point is to win elections. Not ideological purity.

After re-reading your platform, I'll drop my quibble about fiscal issues. Those proposals are at least within the ballpark of what a hardcore fiscal conservative would consider reasonable. Now as for social issues and electoral geography...

You feel your social platform is moderate enough for America. It would indeed be true in say the UK where being pro-SSM and anti-abortion after 6 months is a pretty normal conservative position. However, this being the USA, enough of the population feels that those positions are completely unacceptable.

While I'm among the first to admit that socons are in the minority, they're still a considerable interest group, and considerably more dispersed than the segregationists. It's not like Strom Thurmond where the 3rd party got basically 0 votes outside of the deep south. There are sizable pockets evangelicals in places like Ohio and Florida that could go 3rd party.

If for example Huckabee got a mere 20% of the white evangelical Romney vote, and nothing else he'd manage 4% of the vote, which would be enough to ruin an election for the GOP.

This is a good example of the GOP's problem that IceSpear brought up before. The GOP has to find a balance between attracting moderates and keeping a base from up and leaving. The base is just too large and too out of sync with the moderates for a balance to be easily struck.

[Mister Mets]

Broadening the national message is probably preferable to trying radically different messages in different states. Candidate recruitment would always help, especially in the lower offices, where today's State Senator can be tomorrow's US Senator, and the city councilman may one day become Governor.

There is disagreement between Republicans, so too much message unity would be a problem. The party is generally pro-life, but there are some Pro-Choice Republicans like Susan Collins and Brian Sandoval holding elected office. On fiscal issues, there are some Republicans who want to cut government to the bone and others who want it to run more efficiently. On foreign policy, there are the neocons and the isolationists.

The smart thing would be to fight on issues where there's significant public support. Some Republicans support gay marriage, but most in the party would agree with about 80% of the population that it's wrong to force individuals opposed to gay marriage to work in the ceremonies. Libertarians and efficient government types would be united against wasteful spending, and policies like rent control that have bad consequences.

A new Contract With America would be a smart approach.

I think it would be smart for the RNC to hold candidates to certain standards. And when a candidate fails, there will be public penalties, including a loss of funding, and a public declaration that there can be no penalty for anyone who endorses a Democrat or Independent in a General Election against a Republican who failed to meet specific standards. Ideally, the standards would involve objective details (IE- don't lie about certain things, know the issues) rather than anything to do with policy.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The GOP in its current form  faces a national crisis when a younger, better educated (yet less financially secure), and less white group of voters really starts voting en masse.

[IceSpear]

The GOP in its current form  faces a national crisis when a younger, better educated (yet less financially secure), and less white group of voters really starts voting en masse.

No doubt. But until the GOP starts getting in the 30s nationally several elections in a row, they won't have incentive to change. After all, they won the House in a landslide simply by saying "No" over and over and waiting for the political winds to blow the other way.

[Non Swing Voter]

The GOP in its current form  faces a national crisis when a younger, better educated (yet less financially secure), and less white group of voters really starts voting en masse.

I like this post.  It is the best one sentence summary of the GOP's impending train wreck I've seen.

[Mr. Illini]

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

Overestimating GOP gains in Wisconsin and PA, underestimating their ability to turn out in North Carolina.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The money is already flowing to Hillary Clinton from typically GOP donors thanks to the shutdow and such forth. The problem is that if you don't offer them a bone on something, they will just slide over naturally to that pro-business wing of the Democratic party and you cannot compete without a billion dollars minimum.

If Hillary were to lose to Schweitzer or better yet some urban far left type. Than a Republican endorsing Manchin-Toomey but no other forms of gun control, and running a McDonnell style campaign could make big gains in the suburban tracts, without losing the money and without losing the necessary rural turnout amongst social conservatives and NRA types.