Will some GOP stop voting because of confederate flag, gay marriage, immigration

[HillOfANight]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/lindsey-graham-hometown-confederate-flag-central-south-carolina-119492.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems on so many issues, in just the past year, the GOP and Democrats have moved leftward. Bush, Rubio, Walker don't support deportation and are for some kind of legal status for undocumented immigrants. None of the top 3 support the flag. Walker is the only one seeking to defy the supreme court on gay marriage.

Looking at Betty Smith's point of view, it seems there's less of a difference between the parties between these issues. And for myself, I consider myself a social and fiscal moderate that leans Democrat, but wouldn't mind if Jeb won.

[7,052,770]

No. They all promised not to vote for Romney and then did anyway back in 2012, and they'll do it again in 2016.

[Cryptic]

No. They all promised not to vote for Romney and then did anyway back in 2012, and they'll do it again in 2016.

[RRProgressive]

LOL no. The haters are going to keep hating.

[Suburbia]

On Free Republic yesterday, I saw some conservatives saying that they might give up on voting in general, they said it doesn't make a difference. They may turn out in 2016 for Bush or Rubio, but that remains to be seen.

[HillOfANight]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/10/the-disappearing-white-vote-and-3-other-observations-from-the-2012-election-census-report/

The total number of white voters decreased by roughly 2 million in 2012 as compared to 2008, the first time since 1996 that a "race group" (as they describe it) has seen a diminution in net votes cast.

I can see that if by 2016, if gas prices stay low as they are now, the economy does not dip into recession, and we are not in a major war, there will be no reason for a lot of the GOP to go to the polls. Their leaders (Rubio, Bush, Walker) are coopting a lot of the same positions as Democrats. Maybe they will feel betrayed and boycott like Betty Smith.

[Mister Mets]

Some, maybe. Probably not enough to make a difference.

First, Republicans are always going to be more respectful of conservatives than the Democrats will. And Democrats are likely to push further, so even if Republicans are going to call for some compromise (IE- immigration reform) Democrats will argue for more (IE- Illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote/ claim welfare benefits.)

[eric82oslo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bitter old woman will be bitter old woman.

[ElectionsGuy]

They're really sore losers if they stop voting because of these issues.

[RFayette]

On Free Republic yesterday, I saw some conservatives saying that they might give up on voting in general, they said it doesn't make a difference. They may turn out in 2016 for Bush or Rubio, but that remains to be seen.

No.

[RFayette]

I hope they do. I hope every old GOP Republican stops voting. Us youngins will save the party and the world.

Young people for the most part are progressive as heck.  I'm quite fiscally conservative in my high school cohort.  You would not want that future.  Truly.

[Mehmentum]

No.  They'll (mostly) all come home when push comes to shove.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Most of the Republicans who aren't down with the social conservative/anti-immigration stances of much of the GOP are already Democrats, or "Presidential Democrats" who vote GOP in local races.

[RFayette]

Most of the Republicans who aren't down with the social conservative/anti-immigration stances of much of the GOP are already Democrats, or "Presidential Democrats" who vote GOP in local races.

This is true, with the exception of people who are deeply fiscally conservative or quite fiscally conservative and quite hawkish.  Also, anti-immigration in an American context is much less stringent than in other nations.

[DS0816]

On Free Republic yesterday, I saw some conservatives saying that they might give up on voting in general, they said it doesn't make a difference. They may turn out in 2016 for Bush or Rubio, but that remains to be seen.

Ah…but there's so much more they should also be giving up on.

[CountryClassSF]

No. They all promised not to vote for Romney and then did anyway back in 2012, and they'll do it again in 2016.

Conservative turnout was significantly demoralized in 2012. We'll do it in 2016, because we'll be nominating a conservative.  The establishment has moved significantly left of where the Massachusetts liberal Romney was in 2012

[eric82oslo]

Most of the Republicans who aren't down with the social conservative/anti-immigration stances of much of the GOP are already Democrats, or "Presidential Democrats" who vote GOP in local races.

This is true, with the exception of people who are deeply fiscally conservative or quite fiscally conservative and quite hawkish.  Also, anti-immigration in an American context is much less stringent than in other nations.

You're right about that. One of the reasons for that is of course that you're a nation of immigrants, but I think the main reason is that you mostly get latinos (and some Asians like Chinese and Indian) while we in Europe mostly get muslims and poor Africans if many can't even read or Write, from war-ridden countries like Somalia. Latinos are very similar to Americans culturally, Europe's immigrants usually are not.

[Blair]

]The myth on conservative turnout is not true-I love how the GOP actually made Romney perfect. They pushed him to the right on immigration, abortion etc, and then 'claimed' he wasn't conservative enough. Basically Romney got hit from two sides in 2012.

If you think conservative turnout was the reason Romney lost, it wasn't. It's because GOP white male votes are generally dying

[Rockefeller GOP]

Most of the Republicans who aren't down with the social conservative/anti-immigration stances of much of the GOP are already Democrats, or "Presidential Democrats" who vote GOP in local races.

I don't know how this meme keeps getting life.

Formerly Republican states now being Democratic states does NOT mean that people who were always Republicans there aren't Republicans anymore!  You're always going to need independents to win.  For example, in Maine, the percentage of people who register as Republicans, Democrats and Independents hasn't changed much for a long, long time ... It's just that our independents (who would, say, vote for Snowe and Obama) decide our elections.  Republicans and Democrats are still voting for their candidates or staying home.

[YaBoyNY]

No. They all promised not to vote for Romney and then did anyway back in 2012, and they'll do it again in 2016.

Conservative turnout was significantly demoralized in 2012. We'll do it in 2016, because we'll be nominating a conservative.  The establishment has moved significantly left of where the Massachusetts liberal Romney was in 2012

I am actually hoping a social conservative gets nominated, annihilated in a blowout election, and forever discredits that wing of the party.

]The myth on conservative turnout is not true-I love how the GOP actually made Romney perfect. They pushed him to the right on immigration, abortion etc, and then 'claimed' he wasn't conservative enough. Basically Romney got hit from two sides in 2012.

If you think conservative turnout was the reason Romney lost, it wasn't. It's because GOP white male votes are generally dying

The first part I can agree with.

The second part isn't completely true - there's a lot of white male Republicans who are only in their 40's and 50's now.

[CountryClassSF]

]The myth on conservative turnout is not true-I love how the GOP actually made Romney perfect. They pushed him to the right on immigration, abortion etc, and then 'claimed' he wasn't conservative enough. Basically Romney got hit from two sides in 2012.

Just not true. Romney's strategists chose to make him a one note Charlie on economy.  He made no effort to turn out conservative voters. Zero. I don't even believe he's genuinely pro-life

[CountryClassSF]

I am actually hoping a social conservative gets nominated, annihilated in a blowout election, and forever discredits that wing of the party.

I think some swing voters are able to appreciate someone who speaks their opinions honestly, even if they don't completely agree with them.  When the candidate (Romney, McCain) is afraid to take a position out of fear of alienating voters that are 90% Democrat and are not swing voters, it  is the equivalent of a downward spiral in polls, you're focusing your GOTV on voters who are 100% invested in electing Democrats, and completely alienating voters who you absolutely need to win.

I'm not saying, all the Republicans need to do, is nominate a social conservative activist, and then the White House is in the bag. I'm saying that they need someone who relentlessly focuses on the three legged stool of the Republicans and understands that hyper-social-leftists aren't going to be open to voting Republican.  Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida should not be cast aside in an attempt to  run up the percentage in the Castro or the West Village. It's a ridiculous strategy on part of the GOP - they're more obsessed with the gay vote (what, 5% of 2012?) than any other demographic.

[TJ in Oregon]

I've never bought the conservative turnout theory for the 2012 loss (quite frankly it seems to be coming from the same alternate universe who thought Romney was actually going to win in a landslide).

But the question does need to be asked of exactly how far left the Republicans can go without mass defections. My personal suspicion is that the real redline is abortion. I suspect disaffected conservatives will eventually come home as long as there is something the Republicans offer them. The GOP needs to be careful that they listen warily to their opponents' advice and make sure that that it still the case.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The GOP candidate could be an unabashed moderate and still pull support from conservatives.

Look at Romney's first debate performance against Obama. Although he did a lot of maneuvering, dodged questions, and lied, he came out of that debate looking like a reasonable guy. A moderate guy. Someone Independents and even disaffected liberals could get behind. He obviously blew it later on in the campaign, but after that first debate, almost every GOPer you could imagine was touting Romney as an electable general election candidate. They were so happy and so vindicated.

And it wasn't the "severely conservative" Romney from the primaries.

So, ironically, I think the troll's comment about voters appreciating when a candidate is 100% honest is also accurate in the context of a moderate candidate. If that candidate embraces genuine moderate beliefs and is in their comfort zone doing so, then it's fine. Voters want candidates for their party who can win. Had Romney been the Romney from the first debate the whole time, he would've been in a much stronger position.

Which is way I think Jeb's strategy is actually a good one. The field is so split anyway, why not actually look like a reasonable general election winner from the beginning?

[cinyc]

Yes.  Some conservatives are fed up with the establishment wing of the Republican party selling their interests down the river.  And elections these days are supposedly won by turning out your base.  That's why I think candidates who don't adequately reflect the conservative base, like Jeb Bush, will have a hard time winning the general election.