What is the future for social conservatives in U.S. presidential elections?

[DS0816]

I don't have sympathy for "social conservatives." (That description, social conservative, is used loosely. The Republican Party is not overall conservative. And, socially, they're out of touch.)

The best policies in advancing the people of the United States have been historically through liberal, not conservative, policies.

What makes some specific policies possibly conservative, in some respect, in addition to liberal, is because they end up in sync (even without the exact same reasoning). Any true conservative who was supportive of same-sex couples having legally recognized marriage, throughout the United States, looked to the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. (This escaped the four "conservative" U.S. Supreme Court justices which included the chief.) That actually bridged the gap between both true conservatism and liberalism.

Steve Schmidt and Meghan McCain went on record in the spring of 2009 with stating that the Republican Party, at a disadvantage in a new presidential realigning period (which began with the election of 2008), should jump ahead of the advantaged Democrats to pursue making same-sex marriages legal throughout the United States. Responses were predictable: the party agreed instead with Talking Points hacks like Fox News' Laura Ingraham. So, the Democrats got there first, including making it a part of their party's platform with the presidential election of 2012.

Never mind the question, "What is the future for social conservatives in U.S. presidential elections"! The question more than likely intended is, "What is the future for Republicans in U.S. presidential elections?" The answer is: win two or three of nine or ten election cycles which began in 2008. The silver lining will be: retain majority control of the U.S. House of Representatives for at least seven of the midterm election cycles during this Democratic presidential realigning period.