Has the Conservatism of the Republican Party Been Overestimated?

[Fuzzy Bear]

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20160311_Commentary__Only_Kasich_can_save_GOP.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this true?  For years, I have been hearing how the GOP would win big if they just ran as conservatives.  "When we run as conservatives, we win!" said a co-worker of mine (a guy who tends to drink the Elephant Kool-Aid a bit much).  I've tended to believe him, but now, I've got to wonder.

There have been no lack of conservative candidates in the sense we have come to define "conservative".  Small government advocates.  Limited social spending.  Emphasis on Federalism and returning power back to states.  Privatization of bureaucracies.  Social conservatism (pro-life, anti-SSM).  Yet none of these folks could capture the imagination of the GOP electorate, not even Ted Cruz.  And while it's coming down to Trump vs. Cruz (I view the author of this article as a Trump Denier), it's amazing as to the lack of dominance the "movement conservatives" have on the process this year. 

But this article clearly indicates that the GOP is NOT as conservative a party as is believed; at least not in the rank and file.  Is he right?  I think he is somewhat right, but if he is, it's a colossal miscalculation by the GOP Establishment as to what their party's actual voters really think.

[standwrand]

Yeah, nominating a conservative candidate is why the Repubs lost in '64, besides obvious reasons, but a moderate is really the only one that will have enough cross over approval to get elected. A lot of people think if they just got the conservatives fired up about a far righter they would win, but truth is they need someone that will convince Dems that they're not as bad as Hillary. Far right and far left candidates just don't work

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, basically the establishments of the religious right and the movement conservative faction eagerly peddled the propaganda that they were the true carriers of the GOP's base. The "moderate" establishment faction frantically capitulated to the Movement Conservative wing in the futile belief that the cooko beliefs of the MoCons and their passionate activists were in lines with their voting base. Essentially they got confused between the activists of their primary voter base and the more apathetic general election voters. Both resent the leadership of the party but for entirely different reasons.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

There are more conservatives in this country on average than liberals. It's the fact that you have to appeal to the "independents' in this country who identify as "moderate". But the problem is, it's the establishment who really hasn't been all that conservative, I call them CINO's

The GOP Establishment tends to be more of a economic liberal, fiscal conservative party that prevents them from being "small government".

The base of the GOP is changing to be a more populist type party more than anything with its social conservatism and religious conservatism wing being very prominent a la Huckabee, Santorum and Cruz.

[KingSweden]

Yes and no. The "party," aka the machinery, is very conservative in terms of servicing the goals of its donors. Low taxes, small government, etc. I think the base is much less animated by taxes (they don't pay much as it is) than by cultural issues and a frustration with the status quo. There's a major disconnect between what party grandees think their voters want and what their voters really want, which isn't always easily defined. It's an emotional disconnect at its core - there aren't a lot of policy proposals that can genuinely address the grievances fueling the GOP base. Hence, in my analysis, Trump.

[hopper]

I wanted to do a thread related to this topic but here my opinion goes:


They always say(like conservative talk radio) that the party is not conservative enough but my take on that is what issue are they not conservative enough on exactly? They never say the issue. I still don't get it. Then the primary voters go out and vote for Donald Trump who is not far-right. I don't get it.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Not really; we were on our way to a conservative nominee until Rubio fell apart. Also, had Rick Perry gotten that last podium instead of John Kasich in the first debate, the non-conservative/non-Trump standard bearer would be Jeb! Bush or Christie, in which case Cruz would be leading in delegates right now (assuming the same Rubio collapse). So no, a few unfortunate events have contributed to the current position, not a lack of conservatives.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The party has been very good at fielding candidates who toed the line on economic issues, thereby fostering the illusion that the voters motivated by social issues were also doctrinaire on economic issues. But their support on those issues was a mile wide and an inch deep, and motivated only by the fact that those particular economic and social issues were coupled. I think the base is far, far less motivated by core GOP economic issues than anybody is comfortable admitting.

[Gass3268]

Not really; we were on our way to a conservative nominee until Rubio fell apart. Also, had Rick Perry gotten that last podium instead of John Kasich in the first debate, the non-conservative/non-Trump standard bearer would be Jeb! Bush or Christie, in which case Cruz would be leading in delegates right now (assuming the same Rubio collapse). So no, a few unfortunate events have contributed to the current position, not a lack of conservatives.

Trump is leading in delegates because Kasich got the last podium in the first debate?