Electoral Strategy for GOP

[CosmicDestiny]

There are really three areas that gave the GOP trouble in 2012 that cost them the election:
I. The Southeast Atlantic Coast(Florida to Virginia)
II. The West(NM, CO, and NV; to a lesser extent OR)
III. The Rust Belt(PA, OH, WI, MI/MN to a lesser extent)

A Hispanic-centered strategy (pro-immigration reform/pathway to citizenship) would help most in region II and work decently in region I(especially in Florida, not so much in Virginia and the Carolinas).

A socially moderate strategy (moderate on abortion; support gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research) would play well in parts of II, especially Colorado, as well as parts of I in Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina(NoVa, S Florida, Research triangle).

Then, there's the populist strategy - ditch the anti-auto bailout stuff, moderate the economic message.  This could have a significant impact in III, which has the most electoral vote rich swing region(when counting only states that have a reasonable chance of flipping.

Which strategy would do the best to deliver electoral votes back to the GOP?  Obviously doing all 3 would have the most effect, but most hard-core conservatives would have a hard enough time stomaching 1 of 3, let alone all 3.   So, the idea is to find the best strategy for gaining electoral votes with the least amount of ideological compromise. 

[JRP1994]

The West alone won't be enough... Best option is a combination of areas 1 and 3.

[ElectionsGuy]

Best bet is to go for The Southeast Coast and the Rust Belt. But they could get Colorado and maybe Nevada out of the West.

I can imagine this for a successful strategy:

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bGrn

[All Along The Watchtower]

Whatever they do, they need Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado. If they lose any of those while also losing Nevada, New Mexico, and Iowa (which seems likely, but o/c who knows at this point), they won't get to 270.

[henster]

Can't go pro-Amnesty & moderate on social issues without alienating a significant portion of the Republican base. Backing gay marriage and backing off on abortion would cause uproar with the Evangelical/Tea Party factions it's not as easy as you think.

[Del Tachi]

GOP can forfeit VA and forget about winning MN, IA, or MI anytime soon.

GOP should look to expand in PA/NJ, NH, WA, OR, and CO while staying "true enough" to the base to lock-in MO, NC and FL. 

[Cranberry]

I would say the most successful would for now be Option 3. It could enforce the trend of the Rust Belt states to become more Republican, and I think Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin; to a lesser extent Pennsylvania, Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota could be the states that the Republicans have the biggest chance of winning in some years. Most Western and Southern Atlantic states are trending towards the Democrats (as of now) so isn't it easier to contend more in the states that are trending more towards the opposite direction? Sure, the Midwest alone might be to little, especially if states like Georgia, Arizona and the Carolinas also start to vote Democratic, but it could become a base which the GOP can more or less rely on; and if they then start to attack fully in those other states mentioned, the White House will be theirs.

[Non Swing Voter]

They need to go for the rust belt.  Even if by a miracle they won states like Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia next election, they won't be able to sustain such wins as a long term strategy...  They need to win Ohio again and start winning states like Iowa, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

This will probably be pretty hard, but I'd say they have better odds than somehow trying to change the overwhelming obstacles to winning Virginia and Colorado in the long term.

[DS0816]

In competitive elections, the Rust Belt won't be carrying for the Republicans while their base is the Old Confederacy. People arguing that it is feasible aren't being realistic.

[Heimdal]

In competitive elections, the Rust Belt won't be carrying for the Republicans while their base is the Old Confederacy. People arguing that it is feasible aren't being realistic.

The 1960 Presidential election disagrees with you. The Democrats were able to carry several of the big Rustbelt States, as well as a lot of the Southern States.

[Matty]

In competitive elections, the Rust Belt won't be carrying for the Republicans while their base is the Old Confederacy. People arguing that it is feasible aren't being realistic.

*rolls eyes*. The amount of hatred the south gets is unbelievable.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The issue isn't electoral strategy in terms of states, it's policy and attitude.

Two words, latinos and women.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

This is pretty easy:

1. Downplay social issues and focus primarily on economic ones.  Only mention social issues when asked about them.  The religious/social conservatives are already safely in the GOP column and will probably stay there as long as Republicans don't radically change their positions.

2. Improve minority outreach, especially to blacks and Hispanics.  Spend more money on advertising in Spanish and highlighting our party's history of fighting for civil rights against Democrat opposition.  Also explain why welfare reform is good for minority communities and emphasize support for school choice.

3. Stop "RINO hunting" and infighting between factions.  Become more of a tolerant, big-tent party that accepts members who agree with basic core principles.

4. Most Important: Explain why conservative values are better for ALL Americans than the current liberal consensus.

[Skill and Chance]

I think people underestimate how many religious conservatives might just not show up or even vote Dem in concerning (for the GOP) numbers if the Republicans give up on social issues entirely.  Giving up on gay marriage just makes sense at this point, but if they give up on abortion, devoutly religious people may just start voting on social justice issues.  This would be particularly noticeable in the Clinton-McCain states if it happened.

[smoltchanov]

This is pretty easy:

1. Downplay social issues and focus primarily on economic ones.  Only mention social issues when asked about them.  The religious/social conservatives are already safely in the GOP column and will probably stay there as long as Republicans don't radically change their positions.

2. Improve minority outreach, especially to blacks and Hispanics.  Spend more money on advertising in Spanish and highlighting our party's history of fighting for civil rights against Democrat opposition.  Also explain why welfare reform is good for minority communities and emphasize support for school choice.

3. Stop "RINO hunting" and infighting between factions.  Become more of a tolerant, big-tent party that accepts members who agree with basic core principles.

4. Most Important: Explain why conservative values are better for ALL Americans than the current liberal consensus.

Strategically - fully agree. But tactically - there can be substantial losses, while process will go, with a lot of social conservatives not voting or voting 3rd party. BTW - it seems to me the process is already going, at least - on WEB sites: when i look at "issues" pages of Republican candidates this year i seldom see anything about "abortions" or "gay marriage". At the height of tea-party movement in 2010 it was almost obligatory... This year it's almost exclusively about economy, finances and ACA..

[Joshgreen]

4. Most Important: Explain why conservative values are better for ALL Americans than the current liberal consensus.

Impossible to do since they are not.

[illegaloperation]

GOP can forfeit VA and forget about winning MN, IA, or MI anytime soon.

GOP should look to expand in PA/NJ, NH, WA, OR, and CO while staying "true enough" to the base to lock-in MO, NC and FL.  

LOL

1. Downplay social issues and focus primarily on economic ones.  Only mention social issues when asked about them.  The religious/social conservatives are already safely in the GOP column and will probably stay there as long as Republicans don't radically change their positions.

Sure, but those religious conservatives could just stay home otherwise.

2. Improve minority outreach, especially to blacks and Hispanics.  Spend more money on advertising in Spanish and highlighting our party's history of fighting for civil rights against Democrat opposition.  Also explain why welfare reform is good for minority communities and emphasize support for school choice.

Sure, do more window dressing. Let the GOP tell blacks that the GOP used to fight for them before it opened the floodgate and let the racist southerners in. Let the GOP tell Hispanics that they should vote for the GOP now that advertisement is in Spanish.

3. Stop "RINO hunting" and infighting between factions.  Become more of a tolerant, big-tent party that accepts members who agree with basic core principles.

I thought there are the sell-outs

4. Most Important: Explain why conservative values are better for ALL Americans than the current liberal consensus.

The problem is: they aren't.

[DS0816]

In competitive elections, the Rust Belt won't be carrying for the Republicans while their base is the Old Confederacy. People arguing that it is feasible aren't being realistic.

The 1960 Presidential election disagrees with you. The Democrats were able to carry several of the big Rustbelt States, as well as a lot of the Southern States.

1960, along with 1968, were competitive presidential elections in which the two major-party nominees were able to carry select states normally carried by the other party.

What you're mentioning is not common. Lyndon Johnson won in 1964 with his base of support from the north when, at the time, the Democrats had their base in the Old Confederacy. Richard Nixon's re-election in 1972 saw him carry all Old Confederacy states with margins exceeding his national number, back then opposite of Republicans' base.

If you think today's Republican Party is going to rebrand into the party they used to be prior to realignment, and that today's Democratic Party is going to rebrand into the party they used to be prior to realignment, you should depend on your stated example of "1960" to anticipate another uncommon cycle that serves as a preview for another realigning of the map (Old Confederacy-vs.-Rust Belt).

[DS0816]

In competitive elections, the Rust Belt won't be carrying for the Republicans while their base is the Old Confederacy. People arguing that it is feasible aren't being realistic.

*rolls eyes*. The amount of hatred the south gets is unbelievable.

Review past electoral maps from the Republicans' first election cycle, from 1856, through 2012. That's 156 years' worth in 40 cycles. Notice, for example, the consistent and persistent tendencies of Alabama/Mississippi and Vermont voting in opposition to each other. Then come back here and claim it must be simply a matter of "hatred [for] the south."

[Frodo]

There are really three areas that gave the GOP trouble in 2012 that cost them the election:
I. The Southeast Atlantic Coast(Florida to Virginia)
II. The West(NM, CO, and NV; to a lesser extent OR)
III. The Rust Belt(PA, OH, WI, MI/MN to a lesser extent)

A Hispanic-centered strategy (pro-immigration reform/pathway to citizenship) would help most in region II and work decently in region I(especially in Florida, not so much in Virginia and the Carolinas).

A socially moderate strategy (moderate on abortion; support gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research) would play well in parts of II, especially Colorado, as well as parts of I in Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina(NoVa, S Florida, Research triangle).

Then, there's the populist strategy - ditch the anti-auto bailout stuff, moderate the economic message.  This could have a significant impact in III, which has the most electoral vote rich swing region(when counting only states that have a reasonable chance of flipping.

Which strategy would do the best to deliver electoral votes back to the GOP?  Obviously doing all 3 would have the most effect, but most hard-core conservatives would have a hard enough time stomaching 1 of 3, let alone all 3.   So, the idea is to find the best strategy for gaining electoral votes with the least amount of ideological compromise. 

I would guess they would probably pick option 3 -it is the path of least resistance, and the least likely to cause them problems with their existing base. 

[Heimdal]

In competitive elections, the Rust Belt won't be carrying for the Republicans while their base is the Old Confederacy. People arguing that it is feasible aren't being realistic.

The 1960 Presidential election disagrees with you. The Democrats were able to carry several of the big Rustbelt States, as well as a lot of the Southern States.

1960, along with 1968, were competitive presidential elections in which the two major-party nominees were able to carry select states normally carried by the other party.

What you're mentioning is not common. Lyndon Johnson won in 1964 with his base of support from the north when, at the time, the Democrats had their base in the Old Confederacy. Richard Nixon's re-election in 1972 saw him carry all Old Confederacy states with margins exceeding his national number, back then opposite of Republicans' base.

If you think today's Republican Party is going to rebrand into the party they used to be prior to realignment, and that today's Democratic Party is going to rebrand into the party they used to be prior to realignment, you should depend on your stated example of "1960" to anticipate another uncommon cycle that serves as a preview for another realigning of the map (Old Confederacy-vs.-Rust Belt).

Well the, how about the 2004 Election? I assume we can agree that this serves as an example of a close election.

The Republicans obviously won all the states of the old Confederacy. In the Midwest they won states like Iowa, Ohio and Indiana. What is more interesting are the margins in some of the states that Bush lost. According to Wikipedia he lost Wisconsin by 0, 38 %, Pennsylvania by 2, 5 % and Michigan and Minnesota by around 3, 4 %.  To me that is pretty close.

We have a lot of landslide victories for either party where the Midwest and the South voted for the same candidate. Then we have some close elections like 2004 and 1960 where the same thing (to a lesser extent) is happening. To me that suggests that there is little statistical data (at least after 1945) to support the idea that the Midwest and the South must necessarily belong to different coalitions.

[sg0508]

Socially, the GOP has backed itself completely into a corner where if they try to moderate, they won't get the far right to show up to the polls.  The party is in bad, bad shape on a national level.

[IceSpear]

Socially, the GOP has backed itself completely into a corner where if they try to moderate, they won't get the far right to show up to the polls.  The party is in bad, bad shape on a national level.

The far right will ALWAYS show up to the polls. Their problem would be if they started voting for tea party affiliated independents.

[stevekamp]

Reeps need 64 EV to move up from 206 to 270.

Easiest -- two states -- is the Right The Left Coast strategy -- CA 55 + WASH 12 (or COLO 9) = 67 or 64 = 273 or 271.  Of course, the obama 2012 margin is 22 points in CA and 14 in Washington, about 5 in Colorado.

More likely -- three closest Romney loss states, two of which Obama 2012 % underperformed national -- FLA 29 and Ohio 18.  Both are must wins.  Then Virginia (13) where Obama overperformed by only 0.07 -- but another must win.  Win all three, need one more -- New Hampshire (Obama by 5, contrarian Eastern state) or Penna (Obama by 5, big white whale for GOP) or Colorado (Obama by 5) or Nevada (but the Las Vegas Dem increase probably too much).  Reps gave up on N MEX (Bush 2004 state) in 2012; another possible is Iowa (6). 

As for Penna., the Obama 2012 margin is 309,840.  The Philly margin is 492 T.  Obama won the Philly suburbs (net, big margins Delaware and Montgomery, small Bucks, lose Chester), plus Eastern Pena Lackawanna, Luzerne, Northampton, Monroe, Lehigh).  Ds have permanently flipped Dauphin (Harrisburg).  Obnly downside is Allegheny margin has fellen from 117 T for Dukakis to 90 T for Obama.  Still, if the Philly margin statys at 492 or goes up (Rs leave town, plus lots of registered Dem nonvoters), how much of a margin in Philly suburbs and Eastern Penna will Rs need?  The "T" R turnout has maxed out...


Final strategy: Scranton-St. Paul: Penna (20), Ohio (18), Iowa (6), Wisconsin (10) or Minn (10) = 64.  No margin for error.  Minnesota last voted for a nonincumbent R in 1952.