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

[hopper]

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.

[/b]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.

The Republicans were not going to support same-sex marriage in 2008. It would have upset their Evangelical Base in Southern States. Even David Axlerod said Obama was for SSM in 2008 but didn't want to admit to it.

[hopper]

I think that it'll shift to just being about abortion now since as of yesterday gay marriage is a decided issue, though a few holdouts like Hucksterbee and Pope Frothy will continue pushing for a constitutional amendment most will recognize that it's basically a done deal.

The new "Big Three" social issues will be abortion (that one won't end soon, even if there is a partial or full overturning of Roe- which I think is likely in the next 5-10 years), religious liberty, and drugs.

Religious liberty is just being anti-gay, which the GOP have almost nearly done from the 1970's onwards

And Democrats did until 2009.  This issue gained momentum at an alarmingly fast rate, and thankfully it's over.

More like 2012.

[hopper]

I think that it'll shift to just being about abortion now since as of yesterday gay marriage is a decided issue, though a few holdouts like Hucksterbee and Pope Frothy will continue pushing for a constitutional amendment most will recognize that it's basically a done deal.

The new "Big Three" social issues will be abortion (that one won't end soon, even if there is a partial or full overturning of Roe- which I think is likely in the next 5-10 years), religious liberty, and drugs.

Religious liberty is just being anti-gay, which the GOP have almost nearly done from the 1970's onwards

And Democrats did until 2009.  This issue gained momentum at an alarmingly fast rate, and thankfully it's over.

It's not gonna be over. There's a very clear and constitutional way to overturn what the five activist judges have done. Congress strips all federal courts of marriage cases and restore the state's right to decide. Also under a GOP president impeach and remove all five justices who read gay marriage into the 14th Amendment.

Please explain in detail how any of that could ever actually happen.

There's a bill in congress right now that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction regarding marriage (something the courts wrongly usurped from the state's)  (marriage isn't in article 1 section 8 so it is a state's right )

A president can along with a majority of congress can remove a justice for the same things other federal officials can (See article 1 and 2 of the Constitution)

Also the Surpreme Court can reconsider a case. (Brown vs Bord of Education is the complete judicial reversal of all Plessy vs Furgeson) I believe this is how Roe v Wade and Oberfall vs Hodges will both be overturned

There's a bill in Congress right now-Which the Dems will block in the US Senate.

Majority of Congress-I don't see where the Republicans get 67 votes in the Senate.

[hopper]

I think that it'll shift to just being about abortion now since as of yesterday gay marriage is a decided issue, though a few holdouts like Hucksterbee and Pope Frothy will continue pushing for a constitutional amendment most will recognize that it's basically a done deal.

The new "Big Three" social issues will be abortion (that one won't end soon, even if there is a partial or full overturning of Roe- which I think is likely in the next 5-10 years), religious liberty, and drugs.

Religious liberty is just being anti-gay, which the GOP have almost nearly done from the 1970's onwards

And Democrats did until 2009.  This issue gained momentum at an alarmingly fast rate, and thankfully it's over.

It's not gonna be over. There's a very clear and constitutional way to overturn what the five activist judges have done. Congress strips all federal courts of marriage cases and restore the state's right to decide. Also under a GOP president impeach and remove all five justices who read gay marriage into the 14th Amendment.

Please explain in detail how any of that could ever actually happen.

There's a bill in congress right now that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction regarding marriage (something the courts wrongly usurped from the state's)  (marriage isn't in article 1 section 8 so it is a state's right )

A president can along with a majority of congress can remove a justice for the same things other federal officials can (See article 1 and 2 of the Constitution)

Also the Surpreme Court can reconsider a case. (Brown vs Bord of Education is the complete judicial reversal of all Plessy vs Furgeson) I believe this is how Roe v Wade and Oberfall vs Hodges will both be overturned

I'm sorry, but have you studied the supreme court? You can't just impeach judges for bad decisions-Judicial Independence is codified in the consititition.

You would have been one of the people threatening to hang Earl Warren in the 1960's wouldn't you?

Judges can be impeached. Even for decisions. No. Warren was actually in the right on the racial stuff. Remember, I would've stood with MLK in the 60's. He'd be standing beside me today on Oberfall vs Hodges. I don't think you can say the same.

I'm glad you know where MLK, who has been dead for over 40 years, would be standing today.

It's also hilarious that you think that one of the greatest civil rights icons would be standing against civil rights. But I don't get the impression from any of your posts that you really have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

MLK was adamant in his opposition to gay rights.

I could put dozens of links up that talk about this but I want you to do the homework.

I think MLK would have been for gay marriage eventually just like the rest of America if he were alive today.

I do think MLK would have spoke out against illegal immigration though had he been alive in the 1990's and 2000's.

[hopper]

It depends on how you define "social conservatism," as exclusively religious politics or as supporting a group of ideas that are secular, but support a conservative social policy. The second, I think, is bound to be much more successful in the United States moving forward.

All this gloom and doom about social conservatives (I am certainly not one myself) leaves out that if they were willing to - and they have not shown that willingness, at least as far as I have seen - SoCons could build a coalition designed for the 21st century, provided they were willing to branch out beyond evangelicals and the handful of Catholics who they have an alliance with but still do not particularly like. Immigrants from India who are practicing, devout Hindus are staunchly socially conservative, but vote for Democrats in high numbers because of the nativist, evangelizing strain in the American social conservative movement. This would be the first place to start, in addition to perhaps even reaching out to secular Chinese and Japanese immigrants who are very strict with their children at home but are not initially drawn to religiosity in their politicians. Eventually maybe even Muslims and Latinos, since we keep hearing every year about how Hispanics are Republicans who just don't know it yet (I think progress has been made here in reaching out to Hispanic Evangelicals and conservative Catholics and getting them more involved).

The point I'm trying to make here is that social conservatism does not need to be the same thing as political Christianity. A law-and-order, strong-families (or whatever you want to call it) coalition can be built in a multicultural society. Whether today's social conservatives recognize this or not is the question about how relevant they will be.

True Romney won 42% of the Hispanic Evangelical Vote but he only won 23% of the Latino Female Vote Overall when compared to Obamas 76%. That cost Romney NV, NM, CO, and FL.