Future of the Republican party?

[bobloblaw]

I voted 'moderation' but the key thing for the GOP is to shed its image as the party of white people. There is no future for that. Within a generation America will be a majority-minority country, just like CA is today.   

Winning 70-75% of the white votes guarantees the GOP as the majority party for here on out. And yes it can and will be done by the 2030s. As whites move towards minority status, they will begin to act and vote like minorities.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Moderation has never won an election.

1952, 1992 both which brought the winning party out the wildness seems to differ.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Moderation never wins?  I bet Ike and Clinton and Nixon wish they'd gotten the results of true believers like Goldwater and McGovern...

Boblow continues to be the worst poster here, with an ideology that can more or less be described as anti-intellectualism, racism, xenophobia and pretty much just being an idiot.

A straight-up embarrassment to the Party of Lincoln.

[Skill and Chance]

Moderation never wins?  I bet Ike and Clinton and Nixon wish they'd gotten the results of true believers like Goldwater and McGovern...

Boblow continues to be the worst poster here, with an ideology that can more or less be described as anti-intellectualism, racism, xenophobia and pretty much just being an idiot.

A straight-up embarrassment to the Party of Lincoln.

The problem is, the people who want to remake your party into toned-down Dixiecrats are winning, on almost every issue.  This may go down as the primary season when they officially became a majority of the party. 

[bobloblaw]

Moderation has never won an election.

1952, 1992 both which brought the winning party out the wildness seems to differ.

1952 was a war hero and 1992 was a three way race. Clinton got a smaller percentage than Dukakis and barely more total votes

[bobloblaw]

Moderation never wins?  I bet Ike and Clinton and Nixon wish they'd gotten the results of true believers like Goldwater and McGovern...

Boblow continues to be the worst poster here, with an ideology that can more or less be described as anti-intellectualism, racism, xenophobia and pretty much just being an idiot.

A straight-up embarrassment to the Party of Lincoln.

The party of Lincoln??? A party stuck in 1865??? A party that wants tariffs and not the income tax?

[bobloblaw]

Moderation never wins?  I bet Ike and Clinton and Nixon wish they'd gotten the results of true believers like Goldwater and McGovern...

Boblow continues to be the worst poster here, with an ideology that can more or less be described as anti-intellectualism, racism, xenophobia and pretty much just being an idiot.

A straight-up embarrassment to the Party of Lincoln.

Some how Paul Lepage won in 2014 with a near majority and more votes than he got in 2010

[hopper]

I voted 'moderation' but the key thing for the GOP is to shed its image as the party of white people. There is no future for that. Within a generation America will be a majority-minority country, just like CA is today.   

Winning 70-75% of the white votes guarantees the GOP as the majority party for here on out. And yes it can and will be done by the 2030s. As whites move towards minority status, they will begin to act and vote like minorities.

I don't see that happening. Whites under 35( yes I am 35) are likely to be socially liberal and line up with the Dem platform on social issues.

[hopper]

Moderation never wins?  I bet Ike and Clinton and Nixon wish they'd gotten the results of true believers like Goldwater and McGovern...

Boblow continues to be the worst poster here, with an ideology that can more or less be described as anti-intellectualism, racism, xenophobia and pretty much just being an idiot.

A straight-up embarrassment to the Party of Lincoln.

The problem is, the people who want to remake your party into toned-down Dixiecrats are winning, on almost every issue.  This may go down as the primary season when they officially became a majority of the party. 

Toned-Down Dixiecrats? The Dixiecrats were center-left on economic issues where as the GOP is not. On social issues-I take it the Dixiecrats were socially conservative and so is the GOP so there is a match there.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Moderation has never won an election.

1952, 1992 both which brought the winning party out the wildness seems to differ.

1952 was a war hero and 1992 was a three way race. Clinton got a smaller percentage than Dukakis and barely more total votes

First of all even without Perot Clinton would likely have won the election by a slim margin, and Clinton ran on a moderate platform again in 1996 and won decisively. Another example of moderate is Bush 2000 who ran as a "Compassionate Conservative"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Moderation has never won an election.

1952, 1992 both which brought the winning party out the wildness seems to differ.

1952 was a war hero and 1992 was a three way race. Clinton got a smaller percentage than Dukakis and barely more total votes

The 3 way race is irrelevant. The relevant fact is that Bush had about a 38% approval rating.

[Skill and Chance]

Moderation never wins?  I bet Ike and Clinton and Nixon wish they'd gotten the results of true believers like Goldwater and McGovern...

Boblow continues to be the worst poster here, with an ideology that can more or less be described as anti-intellectualism, racism, xenophobia and pretty much just being an idiot.

A straight-up embarrassment to the Party of Lincoln.

The problem is, the people who want to remake your party into toned-down Dixiecrats are winning, on almost every issue.  This may go down as the primary season when they officially became a majority of the party. 

Toned-Down Dixiecrats? The Dixiecrats were center-left on economic issues where as the GOP is not. On social issues-I take it the Dixiecrats were socially conservative and so is the GOP so there is a match there.

Trump has the potential to quickly pull them toward the economic center.  Note his comments on taxing the rich, hedge funds leeching off the middle class, etc.  Those ideas aren't too far from mainstream in the GOP primary electorate as it is...

[RFayette]

Moderation never wins?  I bet Ike and Clinton and Nixon wish they'd gotten the results of true believers like Goldwater and McGovern...

Boblow continues to be the worst poster here, with an ideology that can more or less be described as anti-intellectualism, racism, xenophobia and pretty much just being an idiot.

A straight-up embarrassment to the Party of Lincoln.

The problem is, the people who want to remake your party into toned-down Dixiecrats are winning, on almost every issue.  This may go down as the primary season when they officially became a majority of the party.  

True, but unless the GOP is able to pick up a huge amount of remaining blue-collar Democrats, they cannot win with Trump's message.  I have no idea what the future of the GOP will be, but barring an economic collapse, someone like Trump won't become President (though he could probably get somewhat close to Hillary).

My long-run prediction for the GOP is that it moves leftward on economics and social policy as millenials take over.  It will retain a pro-life stance and will keep pro-military stances to shore up that vote.  The conflicts between libertarians, populists, and conservatives within the party will keep raging, but I think the influence of the hardline conservatives will wane.

[Skill and Chance]

Moderation never wins?  I bet Ike and Clinton and Nixon wish they'd gotten the results of true believers like Goldwater and McGovern...

Boblow continues to be the worst poster here, with an ideology that can more or less be described as anti-intellectualism, racism, xenophobia and pretty much just being an idiot.

A straight-up embarrassment to the Party of Lincoln.

The problem is, the people who want to remake your party into toned-down Dixiecrats are winning, on almost every issue.  This may go down as the primary season when they officially became a majority of the party.  

True, but unless the GOP is able to pick up a huge amount of remaining blue-collar Democrats, they cannot win with Trump's message.  I have no idea what the future of the GOP will be, but barring an economic collapse, someone like Trump won't become President (though he could probably get somewhat close to Hillary).

My long-run prediction for the GOP is that it moves leftward on economics and social policy as millenials take over.  It will retain a pro-life stance and will keep pro-military stances to shore up that vote.  The conflicts between libertarians, populists, and conservatives within the party will keep raging, but I think the influence of the hardline conservatives will wane.

I agree that Trump is not the right guy, but the discontent with this segment of the electorate is just unreal right now.  It includes a good slice of minorities whose parents are citizens.  There's also a chunk of college graduates who had to trade their pre-recession $100K corporate job for a $50K job with no benefits and are similarly angry.  For a long time, I thought the optimal alternative path for the GOP was libertarianism, but with Paul fizzling and Trump surging, it seems like the base wants anti-immigrant economic populism and aggressiveness abroad.

However, they need to immediately draw a bright line between stricter border enforcement and plain racism.  I think a GOP candidate who can pull this off would also need to offer high profile plans for criminal justice reform and scale back the pro-life rhetoric a bit, emphasizing incrementalism.  63-68% of white voters + 20-35% of black voters would be an incredibly strong coalition, even if they ceded 85% of Hispanic and Asian voters to the Dems.  The main danger would be losing the college-educated white voters too badly.  In terms of swing states, this strategy would mean abandoning CO/NV/VA/NH to the Dems in the 2020's in favor of a full court press in the Midwest.

As an aside, what has surprised me most about Trump's rise is how little most right-leaning women are bothered by his open sexism.  Wasn't expecting that at all.

[RFayette]

Moderation never wins?  I bet Ike and Clinton and Nixon wish they'd gotten the results of true believers like Goldwater and McGovern...

Boblow continues to be the worst poster here, with an ideology that can more or less be described as anti-intellectualism, racism, xenophobia and pretty much just being an idiot.

A straight-up embarrassment to the Party of Lincoln.

The problem is, the people who want to remake your party into toned-down Dixiecrats are winning, on almost every issue.  This may go down as the primary season when they officially became a majority of the party.  

True, but unless the GOP is able to pick up a huge amount of remaining blue-collar Democrats, they cannot win with Trump's message.  I have no idea what the future of the GOP will be, but barring an economic collapse, someone like Trump won't become President (though he could probably get somewhat close to Hillary).

My long-run prediction for the GOP is that it moves leftward on economics and social policy as millenials take over.  It will retain a pro-life stance and will keep pro-military stances to shore up that vote.  The conflicts between libertarians, populists, and conservatives within the party will keep raging, but I think the influence of the hardline conservatives will wane.

I agree that Trump is not the right guy, but the discontent with this segment of the electorate is just unreal right now.  It includes a good slice of minorities whose parents are citizens.  There's also a chunk of college graduates who had to trade their pre-recession $100K corporate job for a $50K job with no benefits and are similarly angry.  For a long time, I thought the optimal alternative path for the GOP was libertarianism, but with Paul fizzling and Trump surging, it seems like the base wants anti-immigrant economic populism and aggressiveness abroad.

However, they need to immediately draw a bright line between stricter border enforcement and plain racism.  I think a GOP candidate who can pull this off would also need to offer high profile plans for criminal justice reform and scale back the pro-life rhetoric a bit, emphasizing incrementalism.  63-68% of white voters + 20-35% of black voters would be an incredibly strong coalition, even if they ceded 85% of Hispanic and Asian voters to the Dems.  The main danger would be losing the college-educated white voters too badly.  In terms of swing states, this strategy would mean abandoning CO/NV/VA/NH to the Dems in the 2020's in favor of a full court press in the Midwest.

As an aside, what has surprised me most about Trump's rise is how little most right-leaning women are bothered by his open sexism.  Wasn't expecting that at all.

First, I must say, I've always found your insight on US political trends is very impressive throughout the time I've been on this forum.

The link between education and voting among whites is pretty fascinating, I think.  College-educated white voters seem to be much, much more Republican in areas with few other college graduates.  This is especially true with postgraduates.  White people with advanced (postgraduate) degrees in Mississippi, South Carolina, West Virginia, etc.   appear to vote more like their less-educated brethren compared to states with a higher concentration (based on FOX 2014 exit polls).  In more culturally liberal areas, college-educated whites are much more liberal than their high-school counterparts.  In Oregon and Washington, the difference is utterly staggering (where white college grads voted 62% for Merkley, and 75% for postgraduates, versus just 45% for those who didn't go past high school).  

College-educated whites in VA/NH/CO, as they are concentrated in liberal, like-minded (with high education levels) areas, will likely trend for Obama and those with a liberal, postmodernist perspective.  It seems like, unless the GOP really drifts away from cultural conservatism, trying to win them back might be a lost cause; there doesn't seem to be enough of a reward to try to make a play for liberal white postgrads/college grads in these elite corridors as opposed to attracting Midwestern voters. 


The reality is that a more toned-down version of Donald Trump would be teetering rather close to being a Democrat.  Had Donald Trump focused more on campaign finance, raising taxes on the rich, and bad trade deals, he would appear like a populist, blue-collar Democrat.   The other issue is that a Republican would have to be careful when talking about CJ and police reform in light of the strong pro-police/military tendencies of the GOP base.

As far as Trump's sexism is concerned, many conservative women tend to be very traditionally-minded and probably see Trump's remarks as directed more to "liberal women" rather than them.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Moderation never wins?  I bet Ike and Clinton and Nixon wish they'd gotten the results of true believers like Goldwater and McGovern...

Boblow continues to be the worst poster here, with an ideology that can more or less be described as anti-intellectualism, racism, xenophobia and pretty much just being an idiot.

A straight-up embarrassment to the Party of Lincoln.

The problem is, the people who want to remake your party into toned-down Dixiecrats are winning, on almost every issue.  This may go down as the primary season when they officially became a majority of the party.  

True, but unless the GOP is able to pick up a huge amount of remaining blue-collar Democrats, they cannot win with Trump's message.  I have no idea what the future of the GOP will be, but barring an economic collapse, someone like Trump won't become President (though he could probably get somewhat close to Hillary).

My long-run prediction for the GOP is that it moves leftward on economics and social policy as millenials take over.  It will retain a pro-life stance and will keep pro-military stances to shore up that vote.  The conflicts between libertarians, populists, and conservatives within the party will keep raging, but I think the influence of the hardline conservatives will wane.

I agree that Trump is not the right guy, but the discontent with this segment of the electorate is just unreal right now.  It includes a good slice of minorities whose parents are citizens.  There's also a chunk of college graduates who had to trade their pre-recession $100K corporate job for a $50K job with no benefits and are similarly angry.  For a long time, I thought the optimal alternative path for the GOP was libertarianism, but with Paul fizzling and Trump surging, it seems like the base wants anti-immigrant economic populism and aggressiveness abroad.

However, they need to immediately draw a bright line between stricter border enforcement and plain racism.  I think a GOP candidate who can pull this off would also need to offer high profile plans for criminal justice reform and scale back the pro-life rhetoric a bit, emphasizing incrementalism.  63-68% of white voters + 20-35% of black voters would be an incredibly strong coalition, even if they ceded 85% of Hispanic and Asian voters to the Dems.  The main danger would be losing the college-educated white voters too badly.  In terms of swing states, this strategy would mean abandoning CO/NV/VA/NH to the Dems in the 2020's in favor of a full court press in the Midwest.

As an aside, what has surprised me most about Trump's rise is how little most right-leaning women are bothered by his open sexism.  Wasn't expecting that at all.

First, I must say, I've always found your insight on US political trends is very impressive throughout the time I've been on this forum.

The link between education and voting among whites is pretty fascinating, I think.  College-educated white voters seem to be much, much more Republican in areas with few other college graduates.  This is especially true with postgraduates.  White people with advanced (postgraduate) degrees in Mississippi, South Carolina, West Virginia, etc.   appear to vote more like their less-educated brethren compared to states with a higher concentration (based on FOX 2014 exit polls).  In more culturally liberal areas, college-educated whites are much more liberal than their high-school counterparts.  In Oregon and Washington, the difference is utterly staggering (where white college grads voted 62% for Merkley, and 75% for postgraduates, versus just 45% for those who didn't go past high school).  

College-educated whites in VA/NH/CO, as they are concentrated in liberal, like-minded (with high education levels) areas, will likely trend for Obama and those with a liberal, postmodernist perspective.  It seems like, unless the GOP really drifts away from cultural conservatism, trying to win them back might be a lost cause; there doesn't seem to be enough of a reward to try to make a play for liberal white postgrads/college grads in these elite corridors as opposed to attracting Midwestern voters. 


The reality is that a more toned-down version of Donald Trump would be teetering rather close to being a Democrat.  Had Donald Trump focused more on campaign finance, raising taxes on the rich, and bad trade deals, he would appear like a populist, blue-collar Democrat.   The other issue is that a Republican would have to be careful when talking about CJ and police reform in light of the strong pro-police/military tendencies of the GOP base.

As far as Trump's sexism is concerned, many conservative women tend to be very traditionally-minded and probably see Trump's remarks as directed more to "liberal women" rather than them.

One theory could be that academia is less liberal in ultra-red states, limiting potential indoctrination.

[Skill and Chance]

Moderation never wins?  I bet Ike and Clinton and Nixon wish they'd gotten the results of true believers like Goldwater and McGovern...

Boblow continues to be the worst poster here, with an ideology that can more or less be described as anti-intellectualism, racism, xenophobia and pretty much just being an idiot.

A straight-up embarrassment to the Party of Lincoln.

The problem is, the people who want to remake your party into toned-down Dixiecrats are winning, on almost every issue.  This may go down as the primary season when they officially became a majority of the party.  

True, but unless the GOP is able to pick up a huge amount of remaining blue-collar Democrats, they cannot win with Trump's message.  I have no idea what the future of the GOP will be, but barring an economic collapse, someone like Trump won't become President (though he could probably get somewhat close to Hillary).

My long-run prediction for the GOP is that it moves leftward on economics and social policy as millenials take over.  It will retain a pro-life stance and will keep pro-military stances to shore up that vote.  The conflicts between libertarians, populists, and conservatives within the party will keep raging, but I think the influence of the hardline conservatives will wane.

I agree that Trump is not the right guy, but the discontent with this segment of the electorate is just unreal right now.  It includes a good slice of minorities whose parents are citizens.  There's also a chunk of college graduates who had to trade their pre-recession $100K corporate job for a $50K job with no benefits and are similarly angry.  For a long time, I thought the optimal alternative path for the GOP was libertarianism, but with Paul fizzling and Trump surging, it seems like the base wants anti-immigrant economic populism and aggressiveness abroad.

However, they need to immediately draw a bright line between stricter border enforcement and plain racism.  I think a GOP candidate who can pull this off would also need to offer high profile plans for criminal justice reform and scale back the pro-life rhetoric a bit, emphasizing incrementalism.  63-68% of white voters + 20-35% of black voters would be an incredibly strong coalition, even if they ceded 85% of Hispanic and Asian voters to the Dems.  The main danger would be losing the college-educated white voters too badly.  In terms of swing states, this strategy would mean abandoning CO/NV/VA/NH to the Dems in the 2020's in favor of a full court press in the Midwest.

As an aside, what has surprised me most about Trump's rise is how little most right-leaning women are bothered by his open sexism.  Wasn't expecting that at all.

First, I must say, I've always found your insight on US political trends is very impressive throughout the time I've been on this forum.

The link between education and voting among whites is pretty fascinating, I think.  College-educated white voters seem to be much, much more Republican in areas with few other college graduates.  This is especially true with postgraduates.  White people with advanced (postgraduate) degrees in Mississippi, South Carolina, West Virginia, etc.   appear to vote more like their less-educated brethren compared to states with a higher concentration (based on FOX 2014 exit polls).  In more culturally liberal areas, college-educated whites are much more liberal than their high-school counterparts.  In Oregon and Washington, the difference is utterly staggering (where white college grads voted 62% for Merkley, and 75% for postgraduates, versus just 45% for those who didn't go past high school).  

College-educated whites in VA/NH/CO, as they are concentrated in liberal, like-minded (with high education levels) areas, will likely trend for Obama and those with a liberal, postmodernist perspective.  It seems like, unless the GOP really drifts away from cultural conservatism, trying to win them back might be a lost cause; there doesn't seem to be enough of a reward to try to make a play for liberal white postgrads/college grads in these elite corridors as opposed to attracting Midwestern voters. 


The reality is that a more toned-down version of Donald Trump would be teetering rather close to being a Democrat.  Had Donald Trump focused more on campaign finance, raising taxes on the rich, and bad trade deals, he would appear like a populist, blue-collar Democrat.   The other issue is that a Republican would have to be careful when talking about CJ and police reform in light of the strong pro-police/military tendencies of the GOP base.

As far as Trump's sexism is concerned, many conservative women tend to be very traditionally-minded and probably see Trump's remarks as directed more to "liberal women" rather than them.

I'm glad you appreciate my political analysis.  You have a taste for nuance as well.

Regarding education effects on voting, keep in mind that postgrads in the rural R states are overwhelmingly going to be in management in resource extraction industries, a near unanimous R group.  That doesn't explain e.g. SC, though.  I agree with you that trying to win back postmodern white voters is just a bridge too far for the GOP at this point.  Forget gay marriage, the isolationist foreign policy and endorsement of climate activism that would be necessary would just be total non-starters with other wings of the party.  The age of people voting their tax bracket has largely passed.  Both parties need to accept that and move on.  

I agree, a milder mannered Donald Trump would look a lot like a 1965 Democrat, but then again, don't 2015 Democrats look an awful lot like 1965 Republicans?  Now, the major counterpoint to that is one word: Obamacare.  But consider who the strongest supporters and opponents are.  Doesn't it look like the public regards Obamacare as a civil rights issue, not an economic security one?  And beyond that, what has Obama's economic agenda been?  There's a huge gap there for someone of either party to step in and fill.  And you're probably right that criminal justice isn't the right issue for the GOP right now.  My point is that to effectively go the right populist route, they will need something to reach moderate black voters who stuck with Obama but are hungry for economic reforms that never came.  A targeted better schools and better jobs agenda for the inner city could accomplish the same thing.  The flip side is that Chamber of Commerce types would start drifting all the way to lean D in this world and it would be the Dems who start looking like soft libertarians.  In other words, expect to see a lot more Trumps and a lot more Terry McAuliffes.    

I brought up Trump's sexism because the fact that so many conservative to moderate women are regarding it as no big deal throws cold water on the 2012 consensus that the Tea Party/pro-life activists damaged the GOP with one-to-many moderate women.  Outside of individual senate races, I'm no longer convinced of this at all.  What if the real underlying story is that millions of underemployed Joe and Jane Smiths basically saw two Rockefeller Republicans running against each other, but went with the devil they knew because they still blamed the recession on Bush?

[RFayette]

One theory could be that academia is less liberal in ultra-red states, limiting potential indoctrination.

This is definitely true to an extent.  Del Tachi pointed out that in Mississippi, there are plenty of Republican university professors.  And the University of Alabama is basically the hub for climate change skeptics with Dr. Roy Spencer and others.  Add petroleum engineering (for TX/LA) and mining engineering (for others) plus ag and business into the mix, and in those Southern states, the universities aren't so liberal.

[RFayette]

Moderation never wins?  I bet Ike and Clinton and Nixon wish they'd gotten the results of true believers like Goldwater and McGovern...

Boblow continues to be the worst poster here, with an ideology that can more or less be described as anti-intellectualism, racism, xenophobia and pretty much just being an idiot.

A straight-up embarrassment to the Party of Lincoln.

The problem is, the people who want to remake your party into toned-down Dixiecrats are winning, on almost every issue.  This may go down as the primary season when they officially became a majority of the party.  

True, but unless the GOP is able to pick up a huge amount of remaining blue-collar Democrats, they cannot win with Trump's message.  I have no idea what the future of the GOP will be, but barring an economic collapse, someone like Trump won't become President (though he could probably get somewhat close to Hillary).

My long-run prediction for the GOP is that it moves leftward on economics and social policy as millenials take over.  It will retain a pro-life stance and will keep pro-military stances to shore up that vote.  The conflicts between libertarians, populists, and conservatives within the party will keep raging, but I think the influence of the hardline conservatives will wane.

I agree that Trump is not the right guy, but the discontent with this segment of the electorate is just unreal right now.  It includes a good slice of minorities whose parents are citizens.  There's also a chunk of college graduates who had to trade their pre-recession $100K corporate job for a $50K job with no benefits and are similarly angry.  For a long time, I thought the optimal alternative path for the GOP was libertarianism, but with Paul fizzling and Trump surging, it seems like the base wants anti-immigrant economic populism and aggressiveness abroad.

However, they need to immediately draw a bright line between stricter border enforcement and plain racism.  I think a GOP candidate who can pull this off would also need to offer high profile plans for criminal justice reform and scale back the pro-life rhetoric a bit, emphasizing incrementalism.  63-68% of white voters + 20-35% of black voters would be an incredibly strong coalition, even if they ceded 85% of Hispanic and Asian voters to the Dems.  The main danger would be losing the college-educated white voters too badly.  In terms of swing states, this strategy would mean abandoning CO/NV/VA/NH to the Dems in the 2020's in favor of a full court press in the Midwest.

As an aside, what has surprised me most about Trump's rise is how little most right-leaning women are bothered by his open sexism.  Wasn't expecting that at all.

First, I must say, I've always found your insight on US political trends is very impressive throughout the time I've been on this forum.

The link between education and voting among whites is pretty fascinating, I think.  College-educated white voters seem to be much, much more Republican in areas with few other college graduates.  This is especially true with postgraduates.  White people with advanced (postgraduate) degrees in Mississippi, South Carolina, West Virginia, etc.   appear to vote more like their less-educated brethren compared to states with a higher concentration (based on FOX 2014 exit polls).  In more culturally liberal areas, college-educated whites are much more liberal than their high-school counterparts.  In Oregon and Washington, the difference is utterly staggering (where white college grads voted 62% for Merkley, and 75% for postgraduates, versus just 45% for those who didn't go past high school).  

College-educated whites in VA/NH/CO, as they are concentrated in liberal, like-minded (with high education levels) areas, will likely trend for Obama and those with a liberal, postmodernist perspective.  It seems like, unless the GOP really drifts away from cultural conservatism, trying to win them back might be a lost cause; there doesn't seem to be enough of a reward to try to make a play for liberal white postgrads/college grads in these elite corridors as opposed to attracting Midwestern voters.  


The reality is that a more toned-down version of Donald Trump would be teetering rather close to being a Democrat.  Had Donald Trump focused more on campaign finance, raising taxes on the rich, and bad trade deals, he would appear like a populist, blue-collar Democrat.   The other issue is that a Republican would have to be careful when talking about CJ and police reform in light of the strong pro-police/military tendencies of the GOP base.

As far as Trump's sexism is concerned, many conservative women tend to be very traditionally-minded and probably see Trump's remarks as directed more to "liberal women" rather than them.

I'm glad you appreciate my political analysis.  You have a taste for nuance as well.

Regarding education effects on voting, keep in mind that postgrads in the rural R states are overwhelmingly going to be in management in resource extraction industries, a near unanimous R group.  That doesn't explain e.g. SC, though.  I agree with you that trying to win back postmodern white voters is just a bridge too far for the GOP at this point.  Forget gay marriage, the isolationist foreign policy and endorsement of climate activism that would be necessary would just be total non-starters with other wings of the party.  The age of people voting their tax bracket has largely passed.  Both parties need to accept that and move on.  

I agree, a milder mannered Donald Trump would look a lot like a 1965 Democrat, but then again, don't 2015 Democrats look an awful lot like 1965 Republicans? Now, the major counterpoint to that is one word: Obamacare.  But consider who the strongest supporters and opponents are.  Doesn't it look like the public regards Obamacare as a civil rights issue, not an economic security one?  And beyond that, what has Obama's economic agenda been?  There's a huge gap there for someone of either party to step in and fill.  And you're probably right that criminal justice isn't the right issue for the GOP right now.  My point is that to effectively go the right populist route, they will need something to reach moderate black voters who stuck with Obama but are hungry for economic reforms that never came.  A targeted better schools and better jobs agenda for the inner city could accomplish the same thing.  The flip side is that Chamber of Commerce types would start drifting all the way to lean D in this world and it would be the Dems who start looking like soft libertarians.  In other words, expect to see a lot more Trumps and a lot more Terry McAuliffes.    

I brought up Trump's sexism because the fact that so many conservative to moderate women are regarding it as no big deal throws cold water on the 2012 consensus that the Tea Party/pro-life activists damaged the GOP with one-to-many moderate women.  Outside of individual senate races, I'm no longer convinced of this at all.  What if the real underlying story is that millions of underemployed Joe and Jane Smiths basically saw two Rockefeller Republicans running against each other, but went with the devil they knew because they still blamed the recession on Bush?

I'd probably say 1955, not 1965, but you do have a point.  The number of congressional Republicans elected in 1964 in the Deep South was pretty darn significant.
Nonetheless, even back then, the GOP was overwhelmingly white, and I suspect most of those voters are still Republican......the difference is that hordes of former white Democrats are now (or their descendants) are Republicans in the South, Midwest, and Interior West.  

I definitely agree with you about 2012.  The "missing voter theory" was accurate, but those voters weren't looking for a Ted Cruz.  They wanted a right-wing populist, somewhat like the Democrats they used to send to Congress.  In Arkansas, "This isn't your father's Democratic Party" was one of the slogans used by the ARGOP to win the legislature in 2010.

Heck, the 1996 DNC platform sounds somewhat similar to Donald Trump.  Just shows the shifts we've seen politically.

[Mehmentum]

I'm really enjoying the conversation going on right now.

I can definitely see the appeal for Republicans to go after blue collar whites with a more populist message. 

However wouldn't that turn off a lot of millennials?  Despite Rand Paul's failure (which is really more about him than Libertarianism in general), the youngest generation is very libertarian.  I have doubts that a toned down version of Trump could appeal to these people.

While I think this strategy could be good in the short term, since younger voters aren't reliable voters yet, this could backfire in the longer term.  What do you guys think?

[TJ in Oregon]

I'm really enjoying the conversation going on right now.

I can definitely see the appeal for Republicans to go after blue collar whites with a more populist message. 

However wouldn't that turn off a lot of millennials?  Despite Rand Paul's failure (which is really more about him than Libertarianism in general), the youngest generation is very libertarian.  I have doubts that a toned down version of Trump could appeal to these people.

While I think this strategy could be good in the short term, since younger voters aren't reliable voters yet, this could backfire in the longer term.  What do you guys think?

With this strategy, the GOP would make inroads into millenials, just not the millenials most people predict are persuadable. The educated progressive left types will vote against the GOP regardless, but lower income millenials without a college degree couldn't care less about the stereotypical millenial issues. They vote for the Democrats due to economics. The kids whose parents are lower income Democrats are targeted along with their parents.

As for libertarianism in general, apart from things like gay marriage, a lot of it is related to age rather than generation. For instance, there have always been plenty of teenagers who want to legalize everything imagineable, but parents tend to see things differently. I don't see a reason why we would expect millenials to completely buck that trend when they have kids. Of course some won't, and then it will be the Democrats capitalizing in the short term.

[Skill and Chance]

I'm really enjoying the conversation going on right now.

I can definitely see the appeal for Republicans to go after blue collar whites with a more populist message. 

However wouldn't that turn off a lot of millennials?  Despite Rand Paul's failure (which is really more about him than Libertarianism in general), the youngest generation is very libertarian.  I have doubts that a toned down version of Trump could appeal to these people.

While I think this strategy could be good in the short term, since younger voters aren't reliable voters yet, this could backfire in the longer term.  What do you guys think?

With this strategy, the GOP would make inroads into millenials, just not the millenials most people predict are persuadable. The educated progressive left types will vote against the GOP regardless, but lower income millenials without a college degree couldn't care less about the stereotypical millenial issues. They vote for the Democrats due to economics. The kids whose parents are lower income Democrats are targeted along with their parents.

As for libertarianism in general, apart from things like gay marriage, a lot of it is related to age rather than generation. For instance, there have always been plenty of teenagers who want to legalize everything imagineable, but parents tend to see things differently. I don't see a reason why we would expect millenials to completely buck that trend when they have kids. Of course some won't, and then it will be the Democrats capitalizing in the short term.

This.  For the nation at large, the economy is still the #1 issue.  Keep in mind that media perceptions of the young are heavily skewed toward college graduates and even more specifically toward the Top 25 college graduates whom national news organizations primarily recruit from.  These people can generally afford to focus on advocacy for causes X,Y and Z, confident that they will be billing several $100/hour in few years anyway.  The only issue left that they might agree with the GOP on is taxes, and it's the last one on their minds.  But often they are advocating in a way that is more about fulfillment for them than for the people they think they are serving. 

That's why there is a huge opening for someone who can sincerely come into these communities and answer the "Department of America is Rigged Against You" and the "Program in How You're Destroying the Planet" with the second coming of the WPA and education reform.  It would definitely carry some short term risk, but could unambiguously move the country right over the long run. 

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The GOP is, has always been, and will always be the party of big business. So any populist anti-immigration strategy brainstormed by the establishment is just a non-starter. Total pipe dream.

Really, I would think the Democrats would have more room to maneuver on that front.

[bobloblaw]

Moderation has never won an election.

1952, 1992 both which brought the winning party out the wildness seems to differ.

1952 was a war hero and 1992 was a three way race. Clinton got a smaller percentage than Dukakis and barely more total votes

The 3 way race is irrelevant. The relevant fact is that Bush had about a 38% approval rating.

Bush's approval rating was in part due to a primary challenge and Perot. Perot never attacked Clinton. 6 weeks after the election Bush had a 50% approval rating.

[Skill and Chance]

Actually, I've said before that I think Perot probably did cost Republicans a 19th century style winning streak from 1980-2004/08 by invoking the deficit against the right in a non-partisan way.  So Clinton was something of a fluke, all things considered, just like Nixon probably wouldn't have won without Wallace in 1968, not just because of the South but because Wallace made Nixon look like the reasonable middle.