Why doesn't the GOP ditch the religious right and culture warriors?

[GameofChance]

Do they really make up that substantial of a voting block? If anything I'd say that they are what would prevent tons of people who would otherwise be conservative from voting GOP.

Would it really cost the GOP that much to pose conservative arguments against modern liberal party that aren't completely and utterly absurd?

[Virginiá]

Not sure what you mean by 'ditch', but to completely ignore/marginalize them for partisan gain might actually have the opposite effect on the party. Republicans are already stretched extremely thin at the presidential level right now and losing (either by them staying home or crossing over) even part of the religious right would most likely cripple them. Those are reliable voters and that faction also provides reliable grassroots help. If the party neglects them entirely, it's not like they will just be less enthusiastic about voting/the party - religious leaders could actually end up using their influence against the party, and a party indifferent to those voters concerns would loosen their grip on that bloc going into the future. The problem with voting on religious values is that it's pretty hard to compromise. Tacitly supporting abortion or refusing to pay any attention to pro-life issues could cost them with pro-life voters, some of whom may only vote Republican because of abortion. This same problem applies to other issues as well. If both parties support or ignore abortion issues, then it no longer serves as a wedge issue.

Either way, it won't happen. However, there is a light in the darkness here. Republican Millennials are far more moderate and tolerant of social issues, so once that generation makes up a solid majority of the party's base, social issues will no longer be a reliable wedge.

Edit: In terms of how big the religious/value voters faction is, I believe it's something like 1/4th - 1/3rd of the GOP coalition

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Because they still vote?

[ingemann]

Do they really make up that substantial of a voting block? If anything I'd say that they are what would prevent tons of people who would otherwise be conservative from voting GOP.

Would it really cost the GOP that much to pose conservative arguments against modern liberal party that aren't completely and utterly absurd?

It seems to me as a European that cultural values are what the Republican can compete on, do you really think that corporate welfare and hostility toward universal healthcare are something which is a vote getter if they dropped the social and religious issues?

[RINO Tom]

Republicans have always - yes, always - had an extremely "socially conservative" group of voters in their coalition, and they need them.  They should not "ditch" them.  Their mistake is catering to them too much and ignoring another key bloc of the party, wealthy suburbanites and business types.  The GOP wins working class Whites and college-educated Whites by very similar margins and get crushed among minorities of all strata, suggesting their problem is much more rooted in race and culture.  The GOP would be much better off cultivating an image that would get affluent minorities to vote even half as Republican as affluent Whites, and that means cutting the (excessive) nativist and racist dog whistles.  Affluent people make up a disproportionately large percent of the electorate, and suburbs usually provide the margin of victory in states.  Win.  Those.  Voters.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Because they enjoy winning elections.

[RightBehind]

Because they enjoy winning elections.

I would argue that the religious right and culture warriors have helped the GOP lose elections they were supposed to win.

[RaphaelDLG]

Because it has been very, very profitable to pay lip service to them.

Because they enjoy winning elections.

I would argue that the religious right and culture warriors have helped the GOP lose elections they were supposed to win.

At times, yes, that is true when you point to examples like Todd Akin, etc, but the bottom line is there really aren't enough people in this country to solely support a party devoted to pro-big business policies; you have to throw in some piety or nativism or guns or something else to build a sufficiently large enough winning coalition. 

GWB certainly doesn't win in 2004 without his blatant pandering to the religious right.

Now, the GOP might in the not-so-distant future find it expedient to ditch the culture warriors because... they are all old and dying and being replaced by a demographic cohort that doesn't give a damn if you are gay or transgender or latino, etc.

You see this with the rapid change in the Republican party on gay marriage and also the strong pressure to moderate on immigration, both trends for the sake of political expediency.

[RightBehind]

Because it has been very, very profitable to pay lip service to them.

Because they enjoy winning elections.

I would argue that the religious right and culture warriors have helped the GOP lose elections they were supposed to win.

At times, yes, that is true when you point to examples like Todd Akin, etc, but the bottom line is there really aren't enough people in this country to solely support a party devoted to pro-big business policies; you have to throw in some piety or nativism or guns or something else to build a sufficiently large enough winning coalition. 

GWB certainly doesn't win in 2004 without his blatant pandering to the religious right.

Now, the GOP might in the not-so-distant future find it expedient to ditch the culture warriors because... they are all old and dying and being replaced by a demographic cohort that doesn't give a damn if you are gay or transgender or latino, etc.

You see this with the rapid change in the Republican party on gay marriage and also the strong pressure to moderate on immigration, both trends for the sake of political expediency.

Although not that long ago, 2004 America =/= 2016 America. McCaskil was vulnerable. Harry Reid was unpopular. Former Governor Pat Quinn lost to Rauner and barely won in 2010. Who did Quinn beat in 2010? State Senator Bill Brady, who was about as far to the right on social issues as you could get. I have little doubt Quinn won then because of how crazy Brady was. I don't like Rauner, but at least he's none of this social issues nonsense that many Republicans are obsessed about.

Pandering to the religious right and also being part of it can be lipstick on a pig. I don't want to hear about your family values if you're impregnating mistresses.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

People understate how important abortion is to the modern republican coalition. There are a good number of people (both activists and voters) who don't care about politics (or at least consider it unimportant) beyond the opposition to abortion an act they consider a vile sin. right wingers need them.

The truth is the religious right has changed but will not die. The Reagan era of smiling televangelists has passed with the exposure of mass hypocricy on the part of its preachers and politicians. Instead it has morphed to a more angry defensive form, for the time being anyway.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Because it has been very, very profitable to pay lip service to them.

Because they enjoy winning elections.

I would argue that the religious right and culture warriors have helped the GOP lose elections they were supposed to win.

At times, yes, that is true when you point to examples like Todd Akin, etc, but the bottom line is there really aren't enough people in this country to solely support a party devoted to pro-big business policies; you have to throw in some piety or nativism or guns or something else to build a sufficiently large enough winning coalition. 

GWB certainly doesn't win in 2004 without his blatant pandering to the religious right.

Now, the GOP might in the not-so-distant future find it expedient to ditch the culture warriors because... they are all old and dying and being replaced by a demographic cohort that doesn't give a damn if you are gay or transgender or latino, etc.

You see this with the rapid change in the Republican party on gay marriage and also the strong pressure to moderate on immigration, both trends for the sake of political expediency.

Although not that long ago, 2004 America =/= 2016 America. McCaskil was vulnerable. Harry Reid was unpopular. Former Governor Pat Quinn lost to Rauner and barely won in 2010. Who did Quinn beat in 2010? State Senator Bill Brady, who was about as far to the right on social issues as you could get. I have little doubt Quinn won then because of how crazy Brady was. I don't like Rauner, but at least he's none of this social issues nonsense that many Republicans are obsessed about.

Pandering to the religious right and also being part of it can be lipstick on a pig. I don't want to hear about your family values if you're impregnating mistresses.

There are a dozen Republicans in Missouri who are strong pro-lifers that would have defeated McCaskil easily. Going too far on the abortion issue in the form of a gaffe, shouldn't lead one to conclude that all social issues must be dropped to win MO. MO is a socially conservative state, just look how it has gotten more Republican as the GOP became more defined by such issues over the 2000s.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

40% of Romney's votes came from Evangelicals.

Don't don't crap in the face of almost half your voters to win an extra five at the margins.

The problem is not the abortion issue. The problem is the extent and the delivery. Even Ann Coulter said after 2012 that Todd Akin took it so far as to represent puracy with lunacy.

If Angle had been pro-choice she still would have lost to Reid, because Angle is fing nuts. It has nothing to do with social conservatism. If a candidate is low quality like someone like Angle or O'Donnell who never got the time of the day before or after, but somehow managed to grab the Tea Party and ride it to the forefront only to cost the GOP dearly in 2010

Todd Akin on the other hand was a product of the Mike Huckabee wing of the Party, who thinks that just shoving ones fervor in the face of seculars is going to make them get on the knews begging for salvation. It doesn't work like that, the reaction is hostility and victory for the Democrats.

There is a difference between being a Reaganite social conservative and an in your face religious zealot, which is how Ted Cruz came off as. Reagan could win a landslide, Cruz cannot win outside the bible belt.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Do they really make up that substantial of a voting block?

do you live in Utah

[GameofChance]

Do they really make up that substantial of a voting block?

do you live in Utah

Yes. It's become abundantly clear that I really didn't think this question through very well.

[DC Al Fine]

I agree with what Crabcake and NC Yankee said.

Coalition building isn't that simple. Every position staked out to win voters will alienate some of your existing voters, reducing turnout or causing them to jump ship. The trick is to find policies that will appeal to a large amount of 'Other Party' voters while alienating relatively few of your own.

'Ditching' the religious right or culture warriors as some have described in this thread and elsewhere would alienate massive amounts of voters in exchange for gaining relatively few well off white soccer moms and Asians. What's worse, it still wouldn't solve the GOP's problem with Hispanic voters. The GOP for all their problems can at least compete for Evangelical and conservative Catholic Hispanics votes on culture issues. Do you really think Jose the Pentecostal is going for tax-cuts-for-the-rich, pro-choice GOP?

Frankly if the GOP needs to moderate anywhere it's economic issues.

[Indy Texas]

Hard as it must be for the blue avatars who live in wealthy, well-educated white/Asian bubbles to understand, the GOP would do worse in elections if it ignored the culture wars. The GOP would not have taken Congress in 1994 or in 2010 were it not for the culture wars and social issues, and likely would not have won the 2000 or 2004 presidential elections without them.

(1) Most Americans are too poor to have a reason to vote for the GOP on fiscal/economic issues alone.



The GOP has nothing to offer households that don't clear at least $100,000 a year. Their tax plans provide no tangible benefits to middle-income households. Their offers to cut or eliminate capital gains and dividend taxes do nothing for the 99% of Americans who don't get any income from dividends or capital gains. Most Americans will never be able to retire or live a non-impoverished life in old age without "Big Government" stepping in with Social Security and Medicare.

The GOP loses 80% or more of the country on tax policy alone.

Even if you restrict yourself to the share of Americans who vote, only 28% of 2012 voters were from households making more than $100,000 a year.

(2) The GOP needs the "poorly educated" more than they think.

Less than one third of American adults have at least a bachelor's degree.

In 2012, 53% of voting Americans had never even attended college.

(3) 42% of Americans are Creationists. While that isn't a majority, the GOP would have to compete with the Democrats for the other 58% of Americans, and that would likely require taking a more nuanced approach to issues like global warming.

Throw these people overboard and they will stay home.

[beaver2.0]

Because they make up a lot of the Republican base.

[RightBehind]

Because it has been very, very profitable to pay lip service to them.

Because they enjoy winning elections.

I would argue that the religious right and culture warriors have helped the GOP lose elections they were supposed to win.

At times, yes, that is true when you point to examples like Todd Akin, etc, but the bottom line is there really aren't enough people in this country to solely support a party devoted to pro-big business policies; you have to throw in some piety or nativism or guns or something else to build a sufficiently large enough winning coalition. 

GWB certainly doesn't win in 2004 without his blatant pandering to the religious right.

Now, the GOP might in the not-so-distant future find it expedient to ditch the culture warriors because... they are all old and dying and being replaced by a demographic cohort that doesn't give a damn if you are gay or transgender or latino, etc.

You see this with the rapid change in the Republican party on gay marriage and also the strong pressure to moderate on immigration, both trends for the sake of political expediency.

Although not that long ago, 2004 America =/= 2016 America. McCaskil was vulnerable. Harry Reid was unpopular. Former Governor Pat Quinn lost to Rauner and barely won in 2010. Who did Quinn beat in 2010? State Senator Bill Brady, who was about as far to the right on social issues as you could get. I have little doubt Quinn won then because of how crazy Brady was. I don't like Rauner, but at least he's none of this social issues nonsense that many Republicans are obsessed about.

Pandering to the religious right and also being part of it can be lipstick on a pig. I don't want to hear about your family values if you're impregnating mistresses.

There are a dozen Republicans in Missouri who are strong pro-lifers that would have defeated McCaskil easily. Going too far on the abortion issue in the form of a gaffe, shouldn't lead one to conclude that all social issues must be dropped to win MO. MO is a socially conservative state, just look how it has gotten more Republican as the GOP became more defined by such issues over the 2000s.

Maybe so, but it's one thing to be a social conservative. It's another to shoot oneself in the foot while taking the position of social conservatism. Akin and many others on the right (Joe Walsh, Allen West, Richard Mourdouck, Sharron Angle) have all done this effortlessly.

[IceSpear]

People understate how important abortion is to the modern republican coalition. There are a good number of people (both activists and voters) who don't care about politics (or at least consider it unimportant) beyond the opposition to abortion an act they consider a vile sin. right wingers need them.

This.