Future of the Republican party? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 06:59:00 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Future of the Republican party? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: which path should the GOP take in the future?
#1
Libertarianism
 
#2
Populism
 
#3
Moderation
 
#4
Hardline conservatism
 
#5
Everything's fine, the GOP doesn't need to change.
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 86

Author Topic: Future of the Republican party?  (Read 14091 times)
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,958
United States


« on: August 22, 2015, 03:38:56 PM »

Some sort of attempt to incorporate the marginalized into a broader definition of "American" so as to prevent further attempts to popularize identity politics. Let the Democrats have a rainbow coalition, the GOP will champion a broad belt of gray.

Yes. Cathcon as usual speaks sense. Neither black nor white nor brown but simply American.

Yep.  The more people that can be "mainstreamed," the better the GOP does.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,958
United States


« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2015, 02:59:47 PM »
« Edited: August 29, 2015, 03:04:52 PM by MW Representative 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.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,958
United States


« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2015, 04:26:26 PM »
« Edited: August 29, 2015, 04:31:31 PM by MW Representative 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.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,958
United States


« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2015, 07:38:14 PM »


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.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,958
United States


« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2015, 08:39:37 PM »
« Edited: August 29, 2015, 09:01:03 PM by MW Representative 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.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,958
United States


« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2015, 01:05:22 AM »

Why the hell should the GOP be the "Party of Lincoln". A guy elected nearly 160 years ago???

Lincoln is viewed as something of a founder (though he technically wasn't) and founder's names are rarely removed a century and a half later. For the same reason my undergraduate institution still claims its founder who died about 100 years ago. Also, Lincoln is good PR.

If there's any name the GOP needs to stop mentioning it's Reagan; everyone under 35 rolls their eyes every time he comes up in the GOP primary debate when he has nothing to do with the topic. No matter how many times his name is invoked he still won't come back to life.

Agreed, though I've seen a couple kids in my school wearing Reagan Bush '84 T-shirts before.  One time I gave the dude a brofist, only to receive a disapproving stare from the black girl sitting next to me.     

The GOP's problem is that they don't have anyone recent to point to for young people.  Of course, this could change with a new administration.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.045 seconds with 14 queries.