What does the GOP need to change in order to win presidential elections?

[hopper]

As we all know, the GOP has a hard time winning presidential elections. We can't appeal to minorities and young people. The Democrats have a huge advantage in presidential elections. This is not good if your a member of the GOP. What does the GOP need to change about itself in order to survive?

Many people believe that the GOP has to become 'fiscally conservative, but socially liberal' in order to survive. Even though I'm 'fiscally conservative, but socially liberal', this is simply not true.

There are far more people in this country who are 'fiscally liberal, but socially conservative' than 'fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.'

In order to survive, I think the GOP needs to moderate itself on both economic and social issues.

On economic issues, the GOP has to support increasing minimum wage. A large majority of Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans support an increase. The GOP has to also promise voters that they won't even touch Social Security or Medicare. The GOP shouldn't support privatizing SS or raising the retirement age. The GOP should also support expanding Medicare. The GOP should also start campaigning on tax cuts heavily. Tax cuts are incredibly popular amongst voters. Basically, we need to maintain most of our current fiscal policies (with the exception of the minimum wage and SS/Medicare). We should also campaign heavily on tax cuts.

On social issues, the GOP should accept gay marriage as the law of the land. We should stop talking about SSM and focus on other things. On immigration, we can't side with the Democrats on this issue in order to survive. Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr were all pretty liberal on immigration, but this issue didn't matter to the GOP base back then. The GOP base didn't care about immigration 10-40 years ago. The base was okay with someone who was liberal on immigration. Now a days, immigration matters to the GOP base a lot. It's the only issue 1/3 of GOP voters even care about. If a candidate who was liberal on immigration won the GOP nomination, a significant portion of the GOP would stay home. Instead, we need to hold a centrist position on immigration. We shouldn't support a wall or mass deportations. Instead, we need to support a pathway to citizenship. We should support increased border patrol and e-verify. We should hold Jeb-like stance on immigration. We should try to get at least 35%-40% of the Hispanic vote. McCain and Bush both held pretty moderate positions on immigration and got 31% and 44% of the Hispanic vote respectively. Romney did better than Bush with white voters, but Bush won (unlike Romney) because he did so much better with Hispanic voters). We should not become pro-choice. The GOP would never win an election again if we became pro-choice. Instead, we should oppose abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, of health of the mother. We can't win if we hold an Akin-style stance on abortion. In order to survive, we should moderate our stances on gay marriage and immigration and maintain our current positions on other social issues.

Here's how a winning GOP candidate looks like IMO:

Is in touch with middle-class people.
Is a very good speaker and is very charismatic.

A centrist of immigration.
Accepts gay marriage as the law of the land.
Pro-life with the exception of rape, incest, or health of the mother.
Is a typical Republican on other social issues.

Supports increasing the minimum wage.
Supports Medicare expansion.
Will not change anything about Social Security (doesn't support making cuts, privatizing it).
Doesn't support raising the retirement age.
Campaigns heavily on tax cuts (especially for the middle class).
Is a typical Republican on other economic issues.


What do you think the GOP needs to change in order to start winning presidential elections.

Social Security-Yeah I agree with you on not privatizing it but it has to be reformed in order not to go broke. Yes raising retirement age will have to be an option.

Tax Cuts-Well they would have to be growth based not just cutting taxes 1980's style because that isn't gonna work now.

Immigration-Well a big immigration wave is supposed to happen from East Asia as Asians are supposed to make up 17% of the US Population by 2065.

[Virginiá]

The trick is how to engage minority voters so that they will enter the Pub primary. Without that a candidate who makes that sort of outreach won't get to a general election unless they have a uniquely compelling message to the regular primary voters. A traditional candidate rising through the ranks has a history that typically prevents this split between primary needs and the general election. Outsider candidates have a better shot since they can craft an image for a specific election without past political baggage obscuring that image.

For example in IL Rauner brought a hard line against unions and was able to finesse all the other usual conservative points and it allowed him to slightly raise the Pub numbers with minorities in the general election. Of course that same hard line has put him at odds with the Dems who control the legislature.

It's hard to see any short-term solution to bring many more non-white voters into their party. There are policy disagreements and an existing vile GOP base now being stirred up by Trump. Perhaps they could try to jimmy-rig their primaries to prevent them from forcing reasonable candidates too far right? Such as:

Short term:

1. Institute super-delegates like Democrats have so that they have more options to deny a person like Trump control of their party

2. Completely phase out caucuses and allow independents to vote in a open/mixed primary.

3. Reorganize primary schedule so that a majority of the most conservative states are much later in the primary season, rather than in March. Let more moderately conservative states vote first. I'm not sure if this would actually help, though?

4. The important one Drastically improve primary turnout so that those elections are no longer dominated by the most ideological and conservative members of the party. Bring in lots of moderates who can help stabilize the ideological tilt of the primary. What about reversing course on voting restrictions and doing everything to include more voters? Institute mail-in ballots for at least primary elections, so that each voter is sent a ballot automatically for the primary, just like in, say, Colorado?

I really think bringing in more primary voters would help, especially in combination with superdelegates

Long term:

I'm not a policy expert really, but I think the GOP needs major platform changes and new ideas that appeal to the growing non-white electorate. They can't simply cling to their existing platform and expect everything to be OK. I don't think that has ever worked for any party.

Sure, they may not want to acquiesce to more liberal positions on healthcare and education, but those two things I think are pretty important to a lot of minority voters. Voting rights would be a step in the right direction for African Americans. I think it would be better long-term for the GOP to stop trying to suppress voting just for a small edge in elections.

[Indy Texas]

Stop giving tax cuts to rich people. Actually, stop giving tax cuts to anybody.

Rich people are not overtaxed.

Middle class and poor people are not overtaxed - most of them don't pay any federal income tax.

Cutting taxes doesn't magically make government smaller, it just increases debt.

I disagree. The GOP would never win an election again if we stopped campaigning on cutting taxes for at least the middle class.

You may not like tax cuts, but tax cuts are incredibly popular amongst voters (especially for the middle class). Many people vote for the GOP just on the issue of taxes alone. The GOP would never win an election again if we didn't campaign on cutting taxes. Maybe we should stop campaigning on cutting taxes for the rich, but we should never ever stop campaigning on cutting taxes for the middle class. That would be disastrous for our party.

Your party accuses the Democrats of getting support by giving everyone "free stuff."

Guess what, if people are paying zero federal income taxes, they are getting every function the federal government performs for free. That's free stuff.

[Virginiá]

Your party accuses the Democrats of getting support by giving everyone "free stuff."

Guess what, if people are paying zero federal income taxes, they are getting every function the federal government performs for free. That's free stuff.

Not to mention that all these tax cut proposals are largely unfunded, with the excuse of "spurring growth" being used to justify impossible amounts. That and saying they'll "balance the budget" to ensure no debt from those cuts, yet that rarely happens. Thanks to the fight against regulating industries, a fat tax cut package and 2 wars financed by debt, we can't afford to drop more budget-busting tax plans on America while chasing the supply-side unicorns.

So cross off "fiscally responsible", too.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Stop giving tax cuts to rich people. Actually, stop giving tax cuts to anybody.

Rich people are not overtaxed.

Middle class and poor people are not overtaxed - most of them don't pay any federal income tax.

Cutting taxes doesn't magically make government smaller, it just increases debt.

I disagree. The GOP would never win an election again if we stopped campaigning on cutting taxes for at least the middle class.

You may not like tax cuts, but tax cuts are incredibly popular amongst voters (especially for the middle class). Many people vote for the GOP just on the issue of taxes alone. The GOP would never win an election again if we didn't campaign on cutting taxes. Maybe we should stop campaigning on cutting taxes for the rich, but we should never ever stop campaigning on cutting taxes for the middle class. That would be disastrous for our party.

That sounds like a ponzi scheme. What happens when you run out of taxes to cut?

The GOP existed for 130 years before tax cuts became the end all be all of our economic policy. There was life before 1980, guys.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So with a few exceptions, I take it that the preferred strategy is to just try harder to ram Jeb Bush or his clone down people's throats. If only we offer more tax cuts, people wouldn't care about their jobs going overseas and flooded labor markets.

Do you guys never learn? I will give the OP credit, he at least acknowledges somewhat of who the GOP needs to appeal to.


I am going to offer you a reality check. The party as you have known it or would like to have known it is dead. It died in 2006 and 2008, everything since has been pure life support.

The first thing that has to happen, is the people who destroyed the Party have to leave. That includes all the Bushes, all those who would immitate them, the Roves, Kristols, the Neocons, they need to go and not come back. Marco Rubio needs to write books and get a TV show and spend the rest of his life out of politics. If you think people will vote for more wars to nowhere, worthless budget busting tax cuts, and trade/immigration policies that serve only those who read the WSJ and not those who live in rio linda, then by all means go for it.

The base doesn't care what your academic strategies are to win a general election. Nobody wins an election without their base.

You have to do what Trump is doing, but differently. You have to moderate while not only still getting base support, but enthusiastic base support. In case you hadn't noticed Trump is far more moderate on foreign policy, trade, taxes, infrastructure, social issues and entitlements. Its the right model, but it is the wrong packaging. The future of the GOP will be successfully bundling most of the same positions together behind a far less ah colorful candidate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Garland is the 3rd Jew to be brought before Senate in election yr: Brandeis 1916, Ben Cardoza Hoover, 1932, and now Garland.Hoover did it in a split Senate.

I think McConnell's obstruction is not only gonna lose him 5 seats, but a 52 or 53 seat senate will insulate Dems: Tester, Donnelly & McCaskill in running in close races and allow Dems to keep party control in 2018.

[Mister Mets]

At this point it looks like they need a superdelegates system.

[hopper]

Adopt a more Trump/Buchanan platform without completely alienating hispanics.

Well yeah maybe some of Trump's platform is good like getting tough on China and promoting better trade deals but offending Mexican Men(calling them rapists) is a big no no because its hurts you big time in the GE in states like CO, NV, and NM.

[hopper]

So with a few exceptions, I take it that the preferred strategy is to just try harder to ram Jeb Bush or his clone down people's throats. If only we offer more tax cuts, people wouldn't care about their jobs going overseas and flooded labor markets.

Do you guys never learn? I will give the OP credit, he at least acknowledges somewhat of who the GOP needs to appeal to.


I am going to offer you a reality check. The party as you have known it or would like to have known it is dead. It died in 2006 and 2008, everything since has been pure life support.

The first thing that has to happen, is the people who destroyed the Party have to leave. That includes all the Bushes, all those who would immitate them, the Roves, Kristols, the Neocons, they need to go and not come back. Marco Rubio needs to write books and get a TV show and spend the rest of his life out of politics. If you think people will vote for more wars to nowhere, worthless budget busting tax cuts, and trade/immigration policies that serve only those who read the WSJ and not those who live in rio linda, then by all means go for it.

The base doesn't care what your academic strategies are to win a general election. Nobody wins an election without their base.

You have to do what Trump is doing, but differently. You have to moderate while not only still getting base support, but enthusiastic base support. In case you hadn't noticed Trump is far more moderate on foreign policy, trade, taxes, infrastructure, social issues and entitlements. Its the right model, but it is the wrong packaging. The future of the GOP will be successfully bundling most of the same positions together behind a far less ah colorful candidate.

Yeah it sort of like Goldwater trying to win on conservatism in 1964 but he wasn't the right packaging like Reagan was in 1980 in order to win on conservatism.

[Frodo]

So with a few exceptions, I take it that the preferred strategy is to just try harder to ram Jeb Bush or his clone down people's throats. If only we offer more tax cuts, people wouldn't care about their jobs going overseas and flooded labor markets.

Do you guys never learn? I will give the OP credit, he at least acknowledges somewhat of who the GOP needs to appeal to.


I am going to offer you a reality check. The party as you have known it or would like to have known it is dead. It died in 2006 and 2008, everything since has been pure life support.

The first thing that has to happen, is the people who destroyed the Party have to leave. That includes all the Bushes, all those who would immitate them, the Roves, Kristols, the Neocons, they need to go and not come back. Marco Rubio needs to write books and get a TV show and spend the rest of his life out of politics. If you think people will vote for more wars to nowhere, worthless budget busting tax cuts, and trade/immigration policies that serve only those who read the WSJ and not those who live in rio linda, then by all means go for it.

The base doesn't care what your academic strategies are to win a general election. Nobody wins an election without their base.

You have to do what Trump is doing, but differently. You have to moderate while not only still getting base support, but enthusiastic base support. In case you hadn't noticed Trump is far more moderate on foreign policy, trade, taxes, infrastructure, social issues and entitlements. Its the right model, but it is the wrong packaging. The future of the GOP will be successfully bundling most of the same positions together behind a far less ah colorful candidate.

So basically more populist and less conservative.  And jettison the white nationalism while you're at it.

And as far as foreign policy is concerned, it would help if they were to return to the realist (as opposed to neo-conservative) school of foreign policy as represented by the George H. W. Bush administration.  

[wolfsblood07]

The GOP does not have to change!  It should be true to the conservative ideals of low taxes, economic growth, strong military, personal freedom, law and order, pro-business, and free markets.
The GOP won landslide victories in 1972, 1980 and 1984.  We are in a liberal cycle, but it won't last forever.  The GOP is not losing as badly as the Dems did in the pre-Clinton era.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Their candidates that could of beaten Clinton, Jeb, Rubio & Kasich just got beat. The one reason is the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin who endorsed Trump.  And the Tea Party is no question playing spoiler to GOP on behalf of Garland, that Kirk, Heller, Moran & Johnson bucked the GOP on.

If 2020, if they go ahead and nominate Ryan, they will lose again, who wants to privatize social security and medicare. The GOP havent taken any steps on the Bowles-Simpson plan.

[hopper]

Their candidates that could of beaten Clinton, Jeb, Rubio & Kasich just got beat. The one reason is the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin who endorsed Trump.  And the Tea Party is no question playing spoiler to GOP on behalf of Garland, that Kirk, Heller, Moran & Johnson bucked the GOP on.

If 2020, if they go ahead and nominate Ryan, they will lose again, who wants to privatize social security and medicare. The GOP havent taken any steps on the Bowles-Simpson plan.

The Tea Party? Even Republicans laugh at them in 2016. The Tea Party isn't popular like it was from 2009-2012.

Tea Party is playing spoiler? No McConnell is playing spoiler by not bringing up Garland's nomination to the floor.

[Beet]

Nc Yankee should be put in charge of the RNC.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Dump the Tea Party and quit pandering to religious conservatives on social issues.  They don't need to move to the left that much, just enough so that people don't think they're wingnuts.  And religious conservatives are pretty solidly in the GOP column at this point, so it's not like we're going to lose their votes by focusing less on their preferred issues.

[Virginiá]

The GOP does not have to change!  It should be true to the conservative ideals of low taxes, economic growth, strong military, personal freedom, law and order, pro-business, and free markets.
The GOP won landslide victories in 1972, 1980 and 1984.  We are in a liberal cycle, but it won't last forever.  The GOP is not losing as badly as the Dems did in the pre-Clinton era.

I don't think that really matters.  Republicans won mostly landslides between 1968 - 1988, but  they still never controlled Congress and didn't even begin to make progress towards that until 1980 (but only the Senate, and only for 6 years). With that in mind, Nixon, Reagan and Bush could have all won with 271 EVs only and it would still have had the same impact at the time.

But you're right, the cycles don't last forever, and the longer a party holds the presidency, the more likely it is to be in power when a recession hits, which could damage the party's image. However, something I think that is a bit different with this cycle is the growing power of non-white voters and the Republican party's absolute terrible showing with them. If they let Hispanics become a solid Democratic voting bloc like African Americans, then it could take them a long time to win back those voters, and until then it will be very difficult to win presidential elections.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump is now down by 6 points, the same place where Romney & McCain was.  A 272 election was suppose to bring in NH, CO and Iowa; as GOP solidified Va, thats why the convention in Cleveland.  Cook just moved Portman out of leans R category. If Appalachian continues to vote like Potomac, rather than South, then that too will spell doom for GOP

[hopper]

The GOP does not have to change!  It should be true to the conservative ideals of low taxes, economic growth, strong military, personal freedom, law and order, pro-business, and free markets.
The GOP won landslide victories in 1972, 1980 and 1984.  We are in a liberal cycle, but it won't last forever.  The GOP is not losing as badly as the Dems did in the pre-Clinton era.

I don't think that really matters.  Republicans won mostly landslides between 1968 - 1988, but  they still never controlled Congress and didn't even begin to make progress towards that until 1980 (but only the Senate, and only for 6 years). With that in mind, Nixon, Reagan and Bush could have all won with 271 EVs only and it would still have had the same impact at the time.

But you're right, the cycles don't last forever, and the longer a party holds the presidency, the more likely it is to be in power when a recession hits, which could damage the party's image. However, something I think that is a bit different with this cycle is the growing power of non-white voters and the Republican party's absolute terrible showing with them. If they let Hispanics become a solid Democratic voting bloc like African Americans, then it could take them a long time to win back those voters, and until then it will be very difficult to win presidential elections.

Losing the Hispanic Vote is mostly the parties fault. Not getting behind immigration reform is a huge mistake by the party because the talk radio crowd doesn't want it being the reason why that the GOP doesn't get behind the issue.

[Potus]

The GOP does not have to change!  It should be true to the conservative ideals of low taxes, economic growth, strong military, personal freedom, law and order, pro-business, and free markets.
The GOP won landslide victories in 1972, 1980 and 1984.  We are in a liberal cycle, but it won't last forever.  The GOP is not losing as badly as the Dems did in the pre-Clinton era.

I don't think that really matters.  Republicans won mostly landslides between 1968 - 1988, but  they still never controlled Congress and didn't even begin to make progress towards that until 1980 (but only the Senate, and only for 6 years). With that in mind, Nixon, Reagan and Bush could have all won with 271 EVs only and it would still have had the same impact at the time.

But you're right, the cycles don't last forever, and the longer a party holds the presidency, the more likely it is to be in power when a recession hits, which could damage the party's image. However, something I think that is a bit different with this cycle is the growing power of non-white voters and the Republican party's absolute terrible showing with them. If they let Hispanics become a solid Democratic voting bloc like African Americans, then it could take them a long time to win back those voters, and until then it will be very difficult to win presidential elections.

Losing the Hispanic Vote is mostly the parties fault. Not getting behind immigration reform is a huge mistake by the party because the talk radio crowd doesn't want it being the reason why that the GOP doesn't get behind the issue.

The majority of Hispanic immigrants believe that the government should do more in the name of social justice and have an enlarged role in the economy. Supporting legalization is not going suddenly make the hispanic bloc competitive. The answer to the immigration issue is to practice a regimen of humane enforcement and ending the flow of illegal immigration.

Employers should be held criminally liable for hiring illegal immigrants, it's their responsibility to make sure the paperwork is valid just like they perform thorough background and reference checks. We should secure the southern border, especially with the international markets showing signs of weakness due to China and whatnot. An economic cycle in which the world faulters while the U.S. continues to grow, albeit slowly and not enough to really improve people's lives, will result in a large amount of economic immigration into the United States.

Long story short, Republicans can perform better among Hispanics by communicating with their economic interests. Hispanics work disproportionately low-skilled jobs, which is something they don't necessarily want for their children. Education was a much larger influence on the Hispanic vote than immigration for George W. Bush. To this day, No Child Left Behind is popular among minorities when compared to the public at large. School choice and holding the system(unions, bureaucrats, and personnel) accountable is an issue where Republicans are actively fighting for their interests.

Beyond that, Republicans would do better to shift their rhetoric on tax cuts from income taxes to payroll taxes. Reagan ran on a 30% income tax cut for everyone. The next great Republican President is probably going to run on something like a 30% payroll tax cut for workers. For my mother, who is a single mom with an income below the poverty line for our family, that tax cut would basically pay for a month of groceries and incidentals. For the average family, it's $1,100 a year. Now, I know this is too technical to fit in a campaign speech, but the sentiment is what matters. This would provide a real, legitimate increase in the average person's standard of living, they would see an fifty bucks in their paycheck twice a month.

Republicans need to connect their principles and their rhetoric to what goes on in people's lives. Energy is another great opportunity for this. There are plenty of opportunities for absolutely anyone to go work hard and earn a really good living. People equate energy with jobs. That's an issue we shouldn't let go.

[Indy Texas]

Dump the Tea Party and quit pandering to religious conservatives on social issues.  They don't need to move to the left that much, just enough so that people don't think they're wingnuts.  And religious conservatives are pretty solidly in the GOP column at this point, so it's not like we're going to lose their votes by focusing less on their preferred issues.

I don't think the full impact of the socially fundamentalist, anti-science BS your party has been full of the past 20 years has been felt yet.

For the past few cycles, the GOP has comforted itself with its poor performance among Millennials by saying something to the effect of, "Well, they're just young and confused. Once they get a job and have kids and pay taxes, they'll vote for us in droves just like their parents did."

Except it's not happening. I'm seeing people my age and a few years older shifting into the homeowner/married/grown-up category and they are still as abhorred and appalled by the Republican Party as they were when they were 22.

I know people who have said they don't feel welcome in the GOP and simply will not vote for them. These are not stereotypical angry sociology majors working part-time at the feminist bookstore. These are accountants, financial analysts, lawyers, medical residents - people with "real" jobs and high enough incomes that the GOP should ostensibly be able to get their attention based on economic/tax policy. These are people who live in places like Houston and Dallas and Austin. 50 years ago, these people would be Republican without a second thought. Now, the Republican Party is losing them, and if they are losing them now, they very likely will never get them back.

The Republican Party is signing away the people who will make up the middle- and upper-middle class of this country for the next 50 years. They aren't going to realize how screwed they are until they look at exit polls in 2024 and see that now the only cohort of Americans they are winning are the ones above age 45.

[Indy Texas]

Beyond that, Republicans would do better to shift their rhetoric on tax cuts from income taxes to payroll taxes. Reagan ran on a 30% income tax cut for everyone. The next great Republican President is probably going to run on something like a 30% payroll tax cut for workers. For my mother, who is a single mom with an income below the poverty line for our family, that tax cut would basically pay for a month of groceries and incidentals. For the average family, it's $1,100 a year. Now, I know this is too technical to fit in a campaign speech, but the sentiment is what matters. This would provide a real, legitimate increase in the average person's standard of living, they would see an fifty bucks in their paycheck twice a month.

Republicans need to connect their principles and their rhetoric to what goes on in people's lives. Energy is another great opportunity for this. There are plenty of opportunities for absolutely anyone to go work hard and earn a really good living. People equate energy with jobs. That's an issue we shouldn't let go.

SS inflows are already in secular stagnation because the wages they come from are in secular stagnation. If you cut payroll taxes, particularly that drastically, you'll make the program insolvent.

There was a temporary payroll tax cut during the recession and I'd be interested to see what literature has come out since then regarding its effects.

You could raise the earnings cap or eliminate it entirely, but you're basically declaring a sort of "intra-class warfare" by making the "working rich" who earn high salaries (surgeons, engineers, professional athletes) subsidize the poor while the "owning rich" who make all their money from dividends and capital gains (business owners, bankers) get a free pass.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The payroll tax cut was the cut in social security tax, a 401K plan for younger workers is a start, but Bush W was heavily involved in Enron, when he proposed it. 

[pbrower2a]

Downfall of Jeb lead to Trump, and nominating another Romney conservative isnt the answer either. The blockade of reform of immigration has hurt the GOP party.

One after another "Establishment" Republican (Walker, Bush, and Rubio went down). Kasich has practically no chance.

The first thing that it needs to do is lose big -- 400 or so electoral votes -- so that it no longer sees itself able to win with the coalition that it has had beginning in 1980. An Establishment Republican followed the Goldwater debacle four years later and won. An Establishment Democrat followed McGovern four years later and won. Nixon and Carter were both very different from the big losers of 1964 and 1972.

Making up with the non-white, non-Christian, non-Anglo, and non-straight parts of the intelligentsia would help greatly.

=====MY FAVORITE ELECTORAL MAP ======

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

Can you imagine a Republican nominee ever winning Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Minnesota in the same election? That's what Eisenhower did, and he did it twice! Reagan missed Minnesota in 1984; Nixon missed Massachusetts in 1972, both electoral blitzes. Herbert Hoover, who won just about everything outside the South (and made inroads into Florida, Virginia, and Texas that year) in 1928, got neither Massachusetts nor Rhode Island., his two losses outside the South.

Except that Barack Obama did not win the Plains and western states whose agriculture is heavily ranching and the Mountain or Deep South, Barack Obama's wins look like Eisenhower wins. (Obama did very badly in ranch country as a poor cultural match). I could guess that President Obama won some demographics that ordinarily voted Republican and President Eisenhower won some demographics that ordinarily voted Republican in the 1940s.

I'm guessing that the swing voters are the sorts of people once called 'Rockefeller Republicans' -- people comparatively liberal on social issues, well-off financially, and respectful of intellectual achievement. Such voters were commonplace in the Northeast, Midwest, and Far West in the 1950s and still are common today. I'm guessing that they prefer legal precedent to passionate demagoguery and like their politics chilly in rationality.

[muon2]

Downfall of Jeb lead to Trump, and nominating another Romney conservative isnt the answer either. The blockade of reform of immigration has hurt the GOP party.

One after another "Establishment" Republican (Walker, Bush, and Rubio went down). Kasich has practically no chance.

The first thing that it needs to do is lose big -- 400 or so electoral votes -- so that it no longer sees itself able to win with the coalition that it has had beginning in 1980. An Establishment Republican followed the Goldwater debacle four years later and won. An Establishment Democrat followed McGovern four years later and won. Nixon and Carter were both very different from the big losers of 1964 and 1972.

Making up with the non-white, non-Christian, non-Anglo, and non-straight parts of the intelligentsia would help greatly.

Jimmy Carter was not considered an establishment Dem. I was in a PoliSci class in college in 1976 that was entirely about the presidential election (we even had a guest lecture from Prof Paul Wellstone). Scoop Jackson, Mo Udall, and Jerry Brown were considered the establishment at the time. Carter ran as an outsider, and his win after McGovern in '72 led to the Dems creating superdelegates.