Could the GOP's general problem be that the ave. American is getting poorer?

[sg0508]

Yes, we can examine the "trees" as oppose to looking at the "forest", but perhaps this is the biggest reason why the GOP is struggling at the presidential level and specifically, in purple-like states they used to do well in?

You look at the American financial trend since 2000 and it just seems that with wages/salaries stagnating, more jobs going offshore and minorities growing in population that this is the reason for the overall GOP problem. 

From a pure financial standpoint, the GOP appears to be the "top 5%/rich" party.  Well, there are far fewer rich people in America than there are in the "working poor" and with the cost of living rising and wages not keeping up, people are getting pinched.  While at the end of the day, the gov't really can't do very much in a global economy where the country keeps losing steam and a competitive advantage, (which is part of the reason wages fall...supply labor > demand), at least the Democrats come across as "caring" (even if they don't).  Meanwhile, how many Mitt Romney's with the smug Exec. smile have come from the Republicans recently across the board?

As Americans continue to get poorer, one has to believe that the GOP's problems are only going to grow, not shrink because we know, average income to low income earners tend to vote democratic.

Opinions?

[NerdyBohemian]

No. Poor white people vote for Republicans with zeal. Compare the 2012 election results of the coal counties of Virginia (the poorest area of the state) with Fairfax county (the most affluent area of the state).

[Sbane]

I think you may be on to something here. I think the fact that younger whites voted much more Dem than their older counterparts even in 2012 could be due to their lower incomes and less job opportunities than older generations.

[IceSpear]

No. Poor white people vote for Republicans with zeal. Compare the 2012 election results of the coal counties of Virginia (the poorest area of the state) with Fairfax county (the most affluent area of the state).

This.

[Mister Mets]

No. Poor white people vote for Republicans with zeal. Compare the 2012 election results of the coal counties of Virginia (the poorest area of the state) with Fairfax county (the most affluent area of the state).

But the increasing minorities includes poor Hispanics and poor African Americans, so this wouldn't disprove the argument.

I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that there's a significant trend of Americans getting poorer. The Democratic comeback started prior to the Great Recession, and hasn't resulted in historically impressive numbers.

[Smash255]

No. Poor white people vote for Republicans with zeal. Compare the 2012 election results of the coal counties of Virginia (the poorest area of the state) with Fairfax county (the most affluent area of the state).

But the increasing minorities includes poor Hispanics and poor African Americans, so this wouldn't disprove the argument.

I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that there's a significant trend of Americans getting poorer. The Democratic comeback started prior to the Great Recession, and hasn't resulted in historically impressive numbers.

And wealthy Asians....

[Skill and Chance]

I don't really agree with this.  If anything, the parts of the country that got smashed hardest in 2008-09 swung once to Obama in 2008 and have been swinging back R ever since.  I would expect the "Somebody help us!" vote to be more anti-incumbent than left wing.  I would argue the same was true with the Great Depression.  E.g., an incumbent Democrat would have been thrown out just as fast in 1932.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

I don't really agree with this.  If anything, the parts of the country that got smashed hardest in 2008-09 swung once to Obama in 2008 and have been swinging back R ever since.  I would expect the "Somebody help us!" vote to be more anti-incumbent than left wing.  I would argue the same was true with the Great Depression.  E.g., an incumbent Democrat would have been thrown out just as fast in 1932.

^Pretty much this. A large factor in the Nazis' taking power was that NONE of the major parties were perceived as seriously being able to solve the economic problems of Germany.

[buritobr]

High income inequality leads to high vote on the left.

The more the income is concentrated in the hands of a few people, the more is the share of the population earning less than the average income (you know the difference between average and median). People earning less than average income benefit from redistribution from the rich to the poor. That's why they vote on the left. Rational choice.

Income inequality in the US has been growing since 1980. It achieved a very high level in 2008.

[Non Swing Voter]

No - the GOP's general problem is that the ave. American is getting smarter.

When the GOP drops gay marriage, abortion, and possibly gun control from its platform, it might, *might* be competitive again.

[Goldwater]

No - the GOP's general problem is that the ave. American is getting smarter.

When the GOP drops gay marriage, abortion, and possibly gun control from its platform, it might, *might* be competitive again.

That would not be a smart idea. Pro-life and Pro-gun people aren't disappearing anytime soon.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Tax reform could of been done in 2013 as well as immigration. Which could of blunted the minimum wage issue that's going on now. Instead, the GOP chose to delay Obamacare in the individual mandate which brought govt to it's knees. Tax reform would have brought more money in people's pockets. Now with obsmacare on its comeback, Dems are in better position again in Nov.

[sg0508]

You also have a ton of children in this country now being born into broken families at best who are very, very poor.  You have to ask yourself what the Republican party really offers them.

[Heimdal]

There might be something to this theory. The periods where the GOP has performed best, are the periods when the American economy performed well.

The period from the end of the civil war to the advent of the great Depression.  In this era the Republican presidents oversaw the industrialization of the US. Most people weren’t wealthy, but they usually had a higher standard of living than their parents (or what they could have expected in Europe). The Republicans were the party of sound money, low taxes and industrial expansion. This appealed to far more people than just Midwestern industrial barons, or New England WASPs. The GOP could rely on a lot of working class voters as well.

The 1950s. At the onset of Eisenhower’s first term, the large and prosperous American middle class had already been created. This basically continued under Eisenhower. They lost control of Congress in 1954, but Eisenhower still crushed Stevenson in two presidential elections. The 1950s were a good time for most Americans. The level of unemployment was low, there was little crime, family life was stable and so forth. The 1950s probably wasn’t the golden age a lot of people remember (African-Americans were still de jure second class citizens in the South, and a lot of women were stuck with abusive husbands), but things were pretty good. Someone has said that conservatives want to go home in the 1950s (stable heterosexual families), and that liberals want to go to work in the 1950s (a high degree of stability, unionization, etc.).

The 1980s. The American economy was rebounding from the Stagflation of the 1970s. Interest rates were low, inflation had been tamed and taxes were going down. The American people rewarded the Repulicans with landslide victories in 1984 and 1988. There were of course dark clouds on the horizon. A lot of industry was either shut down or outsourced to Asia, which meant that a lot pf people lost their jobs. But for most Americans the 1980s were pretty good.

It is difficult to explain the 1960s and 1990s with this model, since the American economy performed well in both decades, without any real gain for the GOP. That might be explained. The Republicans were fighting an intraparty war for a lot of the 1960s. That decreased their ability to win the general elections.  In 1994 the Republicans finally won control of Congress. They were never able to defeat Clinton, but the 1990s was still a pretty conservative decade. The Republican Congress passed a lot of conservative legislation, that the New Democrat Clinton was happy to sign into law.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Jobs now, middle class ones, not minimum skilled jobs are base on entrepreneurship or who you know. The fall of Wallstreet took minorities, especially poor Blks out of the middle class bracket due to the dying breed of Temp to perm secretaries or receptionist jobs. Most of the upper income jobs now lie with skilled workers with more than a college degree, that's whites have. Such as: Doctor, Lawyer or Accountant.

And whites aren't dependent on industry, they have entreprenered their way in those trades.

[Mr. Illini]

Nope. The areas of these states that are moving left are actually the richer areas. NoVA, suburban Denver, suburban Charlotte, South Florida, Cincinnati, etc. These voters are being turned off by the Tea Party and Republican populism.

[Mechaman]

Nope. The areas of these states that are moving left are actually the richer areas. NoVA, suburban Denver, suburban Charlotte, South Florida, Cincinnati, etc. These voters are being turned off by the Tea Party and Republican populism.

For the last time, richer areas =/= richer voters.  And liberal =/= left, especially when talking about elite liberals.

Yes, and a lot of the areas that have seen pretty solid trends towards Democrats are also those areas with high immigrant populations, who in general are poorer than the average white middle class American.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Nope. The areas of these states that are moving left are actually the richer areas. NoVA, suburban Denver, suburban Charlotte, South Florida, Cincinnati, etc. These voters are being turned off by the Tea Party and Republican populism.

For the last time, richer areas =/= richer voters.  And liberal =/= left, especially when talking about elite liberals.

Exactly.  For example, like 8 of the 10 "richest" states are blue states, but the richest voters in most of those states (by income) still go Republican.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No, it's that the average American is getting more socially liberal.

[Tieteobserver]

It all boils down to media and colleges. For decades we placed our confidence upon colleges and education as a path for our kids. Gramsci knew it, and its no wonder why he stressed the importance of starting indoctrination not on Kindergarten, or Trade School, but precisely at those very high-brow intellectual circles.

Then we have the media, which being also heavily contaminated, does everything it can to portray the GOP as the party of the uneducated, of the stupid, of the anti-science, of the angry old white racist man.

These two things don't explain it all, however. There's a third factor. See, though not an American, I'm a GOP supporter. I agree with Reps far more than I do with Dems. If I was American, I'd be a registered Republican. And unfortunately, the GOP not only has had its reputation tarnished by the enemy. Its been tarnishing itself since the rise of the Christian Right. Goldwater warned you, and apparently, you gave the poor man little attention. Its not about being pro-life. I'm a pro-life too, even though I also happen to be an atheist. Its not about the drugs. William Buckley Jr. was a proponent of decriminalising the herb. Its not about gay marriage, which I oppose simply because I am totally against Civil Marriage at all, even though its something I'd easily compromise.

Its about how you present yourselves.

[Meursault]

It all boils down to media and colleges. For decades we placed our confidence upon colleges and education as a path for our kids. Gramsci knew it, and its no wonder why he stressed the importance of starting indoctrination not on Kindergarten, or Trade School, but precisely at those very high-brow intellectual circles.

Then we have the media, which being also heavily contaminated, does everything it can to portray the GOP as the party of the uneducated, of the stupid, of the anti-science, of the angry old white racist man.

I am amazed that you somehow think that the gradual decline of the Reagan coalition is the result of a Gramscian plot. (And, incidentally, you've completely misunderstood Gramsci.)

[Tieteobserver]

Please, read the whole of my post.

The decline of the so called happened precisely after 1994, when the GOP decided to employ the Biblebeltical Strategy Full-Throttle

[Meursault]

Please, read the whole of my post.

The decline of the so called happened precisely after 1994, when the GOP decided to employ the Biblebeltical Strategy Full-Throttle

Cause and effect.

The decline of the Republicans happened after 1994, when Democrats embraced what they always were all along - the Party of State-guided developmental capitalism. Why vote for social reactionaries when the Democrats are promising you technocratic capitalism, if all you want is technocratic capitalism?

[Tieteobserver]

Please, read the whole of my post.

The decline of the so called happened precisely after 1994, when the GOP decided to employ the Biblebeltical Strategy Full-Throttle

Cause and effect.

The decline of the Republicans happened after 1994, when Democrats embraced what they always were all along - the Party of State-guided developmental capitalism. Why vote for social reactionaries when the Democrats are promising you technocratic capitalism, if all you want is technocratic capitalism?

And why people all over the world (not only Americans) grew so disenchanted of free market and with such a strong belief upon an enlightened Ivory-Tower elite which magically knows what is better for ourselves much better than we know? Media indoctrination and colleges played a prominent role upon this. It didn't happen overnight. Its a process that takes DECADES. That's why we hardly notice it in the short term.

[Meursault]

Please, read the whole of my post.

The decline of the so called happened precisely after 1994, when the GOP decided to employ the Biblebeltical Strategy Full-Throttle

Cause and effect.

The decline of the Republicans happened after 1994, when Democrats embraced what they always were all along - the Party of State-guided developmental capitalism. Why vote for social reactionaries when the Democrats are promising you technocratic capitalism, if all you want is technocratic capitalism?

And why people all over the world (not only Americans) grew so disenchanted of free market and with such a strong belief upon an enlightened Ivory-Tower elite which magically knows what is better for ourselves much better than we know? Media indoctrination and colleges played a prominent role upon this. It didn't happen overnight. Its a process that takes DECADES. That's why we hardly notice it in the short term.

Except that your entire narrative is false. (It's also, interesting, based on an inverted Marxian analysis of society, with the "ivory-tower elite" in the place of the exploitative bourgeoisie - I'd guess you know somewhere that what I'm getting at is true.)

The Democrats aren't hostile to capitalism - and capitalism, as you know, is not synonymous with the 'free-market'. They're mere technocrats who want to administer it in a way as to promote stability (they take inequality as threatening to the system, and rightly so).

There's no room whatsoever for genuine class analysis or alternative modes of political economy within the Democratic Party.