How does the GOP get a new base for their primaries?

[RI]

The idea that social conservatism is the GOP's biggest problem is laughable, with the possible exception of immigration.  By far the biggest issue is economics - broadening appeal on that league will garner far more votes than abandoning the party's most loyal voter base.

Every time I see someone advocate the GOP drop its social plank and become a more-or-less libertarian party, I have to wonder where they expect all the socially conservative voters to go. It's not like they're going to vanish over night. Further, I wonder if they recognize how many people only vote GOP for social issues and that this number far dwarfs the number of people they'd gain from the even more socially liberal Dems by becoming libertarian-ish.

One of three things would happen:

1) Some sort of hostile takeover of the Democrats would be attempted, but probably fail. At best, we'd see a return to a big-tent socially split Democratic Party as before the Southern realignment. Such a coalition would be pretty much unstoppable, if highly unstable.

2) Social conservatives form a third party that makes the GOP winning anything big impossible.

3) The social conservatives sit out one election, the GOP loses, and they come back even stronger within the party next time around.

I generally agree that the way forward for the GOP is to win over Hispanic Catholics, who happen to be majority pro-life. You do this by retaining most of your social conservatism by dramatically softening on illegal immigration AND by moderating on some economic issues. Do it right and you might even win over some socially conservative blacks and Asians.

[Frodo]

Drop the racism and xenophobia (yes, that includes the dog-whistles), and they might actually get somewhere with minority voters.  

They can begin by implementing (in full) the recommendations suggested by the Republican National Committee after the 2012 elections.

[Indy Texas]

The idea that social conservatism is the GOP's biggest problem is laughable, with the possible exception of immigration.  By far the biggest issue is economics - broadening appeal on that league will garner far more votes than abandoning the party's most loyal voter base.

The Republican Party should regularly be winning the votes of affluent minorities and minorities with sympathy toward the business community/entrepreneurial spirit/efficient governance, but we get clobbered with those voters.  Why do you think that is?  Because my theory is we come across as a racist and xenophobic party.  A lot.

It's not your theory - you do come across as a racist, xenophobic party.

But even if you strip away all that, I'm not sure where the appeal of being a Republican is.

I considered voting for John Kasich in the Republican primary in Wisconsin this year and ended up not doing so because (1) he was a lost cause, and (2) I did not want my name to appear on some voter list in the elections commission office of people who voted in the Republican primary - that would be a source of embarrassment for me - I have heard Republicans mocked by everyone from friends, neighbors and coworkers to the CEO of the company where I work.

I'm a 20-something white male in my 20s who has a college education and makes ~$60K a year. I grew up in one of the largest cities in the country and one that is being very adversely affected by climate change - the Republican Party is offering nothing to address that. Getting rid of the inheritance tax means nothing to me because I'm never going to need to pay it. Republican tax plans wouldn't yield any significant tax savings for me and Democratic tax plans wouldn't increase my taxes that much. I don't want children, in part because we as a society are so hostile to having children in terms of access to affordable childcare, maternity/paternity leave and affordable education. I don't feel like the government is "TAKING MY FREEDOMS" and have yet to be given a specific example of that happening.

[TJ in Oregon]

The idea that social conservatism is the GOP's biggest problem is laughable, with the possible exception of immigration.  By far the biggest issue is economics - broadening appeal on that league will garner far more votes than abandoning the party's most loyal voter base.

The Republican Party should regularly be winning the votes of affluent minorities and minorities with sympathy toward the business community/entrepreneurial spirit/efficient governance, but we get clobbered with those voters.  Why do you think that is?  Because my theory is we come across as a racist and xenophobic party.  A lot.

It's not your theory - you do come across as a racist, xenophobic party.

But even if you strip away all that, I'm not sure where the appeal of being a Republican is.

I considered voting for John Kasich in the Republican primary in Wisconsin this year and ended up not doing so because (1) he was a lost cause, and (2) I did not want my name to appear on some voter list in the elections commission office of people who voted in the Republican primary - that would be a source of embarrassment for me - I have heard Republicans mocked by everyone from friends, neighbors and coworkers to the CEO of the company where I work.

I'm a 20-something white male in my 20s who has a college education and makes ~$60K a year. I grew up in one of the largest cities in the country and one that is being very adversely affected by climate change - the Republican Party is offering nothing to address that. Getting rid of the inheritance tax means nothing to me because I'm never going to need to pay it. Republican tax plans wouldn't yield any significant tax savings for me and Democratic tax plans wouldn't increase my taxes that much. I don't want children, in part because we as a society are so hostile to having children in terms of access to affordable childcare, maternity/paternity leave and affordable education. I don't feel like the government is "TAKING MY FREEDOMS" and have yet to be given a specific example of that happening.

The State of Wisconsin doesn't compile a list of who votes in which party. During the primary, you walk up and get your ballot and it has both party's candidates on it in separate boxes. You then vote in whichever one you want, put the ballot in the machine, and no one ever knows who you voted for.

[Indy Texas]

The idea that social conservatism is the GOP's biggest problem is laughable, with the possible exception of immigration.  By far the biggest issue is economics - broadening appeal on that league will garner far more votes than abandoning the party's most loyal voter base.

The Republican Party should regularly be winning the votes of affluent minorities and minorities with sympathy toward the business community/entrepreneurial spirit/efficient governance, but we get clobbered with those voters.  Why do you think that is?  Because my theory is we come across as a racist and xenophobic party.  A lot.

It's not your theory - you do come across as a racist, xenophobic party.

But even if you strip away all that, I'm not sure where the appeal of being a Republican is.

I considered voting for John Kasich in the Republican primary in Wisconsin this year and ended up not doing so because (1) he was a lost cause, and (2) I did not want my name to appear on some voter list in the elections commission office of people who voted in the Republican primary - that would be a source of embarrassment for me - I have heard Republicans mocked by everyone from friends, neighbors and coworkers to the CEO of the company where I work.

I'm a 20-something white male in my 20s who has a college education and makes ~$60K a year. I grew up in one of the largest cities in the country and one that is being very adversely affected by climate change - the Republican Party is offering nothing to address that. Getting rid of the inheritance tax means nothing to me because I'm never going to need to pay it. Republican tax plans wouldn't yield any significant tax savings for me and Democratic tax plans wouldn't increase my taxes that much. I don't want children, in part because we as a society are so hostile to having children in terms of access to affordable childcare, maternity/paternity leave and affordable education. I don't feel like the government is "TAKING MY FREEDOMS" and have yet to be given a specific example of that happening.

The State of Wisconsin doesn't compile a list of who votes in which party. During the primary, you walk up and get your ballot and it has both party's candidates on it in separate boxes. You then vote in whichever one you want, put the ballot in the machine, and no one ever knows who you voted for.

I was not aware of that at the time. Regardless, my point about being associated with the Republican Party being a social liability still stands.

Also, if there is no record of who is voting in which primary, then how do candidates/parties keep/update voter lists? Going by donations alone isn't very meaningful since hardly anyone donates money to campaigns.

[DC Al Fine]

The idea that social conservatism is the GOP's biggest problem is laughable, with the possible exception of immigration.  By far the biggest issue is economics - broadening appeal on that league will garner far more votes than abandoning the party's most loyal voter base.

The Republican Party should regularly be winning the votes of affluent minorities and minorities with sympathy toward the business community/entrepreneurial spirit/efficient governance, but we get clobbered with those voters.  Why do you think that is?  Because my theory is we come across as a racist and xenophobic party.  A lot.

That's technically correct, but what really matters is the net effect a change will have. That is, if the GOP were to go the libertarianish route, they would have to win over more affluent minorities and socially liberal whites than lose poor/middling socons and anti-immigration types. Let's take a look at the relative size of these groups and how they vote.





Although affluent non-whites are very Democratic, they also are very few in number. Minority votes are clustered in lower income brackets, so even if the GOP didn't have race issues, we would expect minorities to vote heavily Democratic.

Now let's look at the white vote. Whites vote GOP, even at relatively low income levels. I think it's quite unlikely that white guys making $30k a year are voting GOP because they are converts to free market economics. No, these voters are voting GOP primarily due to immigration or religious issues.

What does this mean for GOP strategy? Well for one, focusing on winning over affluent minorities and white social liberals is probably a losing strategy. If the GOP is to make gains among rapidly growing minorities, they will need to appeal further down the economic ladder.

While the GOP needs to moderate on most issues, moderating on economics is the lowest risk way to moderate. Immigration risks losing large numbers of whites who have no other reason to vote GOP, and major social liberalism would be counterproductive among pro-life Hispanic Catholics.

This is a major blind spot for right leaning pundits who are generally fiscally conservative, socially liberal and (surprise, surprise) want the GOP to try to win over people like that. As we become increasingly atomized, it is easier for people like that to mistake their issues with the Republicans for, the Republicans electoral problems at large.

A more effective GOP solution would be:

1) Dramatically moderate on economics, to something resembling Bush era 'compassionate conservatism'. Accept universal health care, and focus on payroll and sales tax cuts, not capital gains cuts.

2) Scale back immigration rhetoric while maintaining a clear difference with the Democrats, to retain poorer white voters.

3) Moderate or drop losing social issues (gay marriage, marijuana), while holding steady on abortion.

4) Employ some of the Canadian Tories' tactics from 2011. They focused on values without religious undertones with lots of rhetoric about hard work, tradition, family first etc. These acted as a sort of dog whistle against the left by implying that they were patronizing about immigrants. Most of the ads were in Cantonese or Mandarin, but here's an English version to get the idea

[Orser67]

I don't think they can get a "new base," but they can seek to influence their base. Republican campaigns constantly talk about how awful politicians and the government are, not just in ideological terms but in moral terms. That eventually led to the 2016 situation in which discredited politicians lose the nomination to a reality tv star. By moderating their rhetoric at least a little bit, Republicans could stop fanning the rhetoric of disillusion that helped lead to Trump.

[Bojack Horseman]

How does the GOP get a new base for the primaries? Remove religion from their platform and start appealing to Millennials and not just elderly people.

And then deal with half your party having their own Rexit to the Constitution Party, just like the Democrats are trying to deal with right now.

[Indy Texas]

The idea that social conservatism is the GOP's biggest problem is laughable, with the possible exception of immigration.  By far the biggest issue is economics - broadening appeal on that league will garner far more votes than abandoning the party's most loyal voter base.

The Republican Party should regularly be winning the votes of affluent minorities and minorities with sympathy toward the business community/entrepreneurial spirit/efficient governance, but we get clobbered with those voters.  Why do you think that is?  Because my theory is we come across as a racist and xenophobic party.  A lot.

That's technically correct, but what really matters is the net effect a change will have. That is, if the GOP were to go the libertarianish route, they would have to win over more affluent minorities and socially liberal whites than lose poor/middling socons and anti-immigration types. Let's take a look at the relative size of these groups and how they vote.





Although affluent non-whites are very Democratic, they also are very few in number. Minority votes are clustered in lower income brackets, so even if the GOP didn't have race issues, we would expect minorities to vote heavily Democratic.

Now let's look at the white vote. Whites vote GOP, even at relatively low income levels. I think it's quite unlikely that white guys making $30k a year are voting GOP because they are converts to free market economics. No, these voters are voting GOP primarily due to immigration or religious issues.

What does this mean for GOP strategy? Well for one, focusing on winning over affluent minorities and white social liberals is probably a losing strategy. If the GOP is to make gains among rapidly growing minorities, they will need to appeal further down the economic ladder.

While the GOP needs to moderate on most issues, moderating on economics is the lowest risk way to moderate. Immigration risks losing large numbers of whites who have no other reason to vote GOP, and major social liberalism would be counterproductive among pro-life Hispanic Catholics.

This is a major blind spot for right leaning pundits who are generally fiscally conservative, socially liberal and (surprise, surprise) want the GOP to try to win over people like that. As we become increasingly atomized, it is easier for people like that to mistake their issues with the Republicans for, the Republicans electoral problems at large.

A more effective GOP solution would be:

1) Dramatically moderate on economics, to something resembling Bush era 'compassionate conservatism'. Accept universal health care, and focus on payroll and sales tax cuts, not capital gains cuts.

2) Scale back immigration rhetoric while maintaining a clear difference with the Democrats, to retain poorer white voters.

3) Moderate or drop losing social issues (gay marriage, marijuana), while holding steady on abortion.

4) Employ some of the Canadian Tories' tactics from 2011. They focused on values without religious undertones with lots of rhetoric about hard work, tradition, family first etc. These acted as a sort of dog whistle against the left by implying that they were patronizing about immigrants. Most of the ads were in Cantonese or Mandarin, but here's an English version to get the idea

Basically this. You can't build a viable party based solely on affluent, well-educated people because there aren't enough of them.

And if you're asking "Well how did the Republicans win national elections before they started pandering to the fundie Christians and racists, then?" the answer is that they usually didn't.

The Republicans had a structural advantage in presidential elections from after the Civil War until the Wilson's election due to the people's tendency to identify with their state/region, lingering Civil War-era allegiances, and later the Democratic-Populist split. Other than the 1920s, the Republicans have never been able to win with an "unadulterated" version of their pro-business/pro-rich platform. Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford never questioned the underlying assumptions of the post-war liberal consensus and few movement conservatives claim kinship with any of them. Reagan and both Bushes depended on Southern racism and the Christian Right to win elections.

So basically, the GOP can either throw a few bones to working- and middle-class voters, or they can pander shamelessly to bigotry and race panic. But it will have to be one or the other. The members of the Wall Street Journal editorial board are not the people whose votes will win elections.

[Badger]

The idea that social conservatism is the GOP's biggest problem is laughable, with the possible exception of immigration.  By far the biggest issue is economics - broadening appeal on that league will garner far more votes than abandoning the party's most loyal voter base.

That's....an awfully huge exception.

[Badger]

The idea that social conservatism is the GOP's biggest problem is laughable, with the possible exception of immigration.  By far the biggest issue is economics - broadening appeal on that league will garner far more votes than abandoning the party's most loyal voter base.

The Republican Party should regularly be winning the votes of affluent minorities and minorities with sympathy toward the business community/entrepreneurial spirit/efficient governance, but we get clobbered with those voters.  Why do you think that is?  Because my theory is we come across as a racist and xenophobic party.  A lot.

That's technically correct, but what really matters is the net effect a change will have. That is, if the GOP were to go the libertarianish route, they would have to win over more affluent minorities and socially liberal whites than lose poor/middling socons and anti-immigration types. Let's take a look at the relative size of these groups and how they vote.





Although affluent non-whites are very Democratic, they also are very few in number. Minority votes are clustered in lower income brackets, so even if the GOP didn't have race issues, we would expect minorities to vote heavily Democratic.

Now let's look at the white vote. Whites vote GOP, even at relatively low income levels. I think it's quite unlikely that white guys making $30k a year are voting GOP because they are converts to free market economics. No, these voters are voting GOP primarily due to immigration or religious issues.

What does this mean for GOP strategy? Well for one, focusing on winning over affluent minorities and white social liberals is probably a losing strategy. If the GOP is to make gains among rapidly growing minorities, they will need to appeal further down the economic ladder.

While the GOP needs to moderate on most issues, moderating on economics is the lowest risk way to moderate. Immigration risks losing large numbers of whites who have no other reason to vote GOP, and major social liberalism would be counterproductive among pro-life Hispanic Catholics.

This is a major blind spot for right leaning pundits who are generally fiscally conservative, socially liberal and (surprise, surprise) want the GOP to try to win over people like that. As we become increasingly atomized, it is easier for people like that to mistake their issues with the Republicans for, the Republicans electoral problems at large.

A more effective GOP solution would be:

1) Dramatically moderate on economics, to something resembling Bush era 'compassionate conservatism'. Accept universal health care, and focus on payroll and sales tax cuts, not capital gains cuts.

2) Scale back immigration rhetoric while maintaining a clear difference with the Democrats, to retain poorer white voters.

3) Moderate or drop losing social issues (gay marriage, marijuana), while holding steady on abortion.

4) Employ some of the Canadian Tories' tactics from 2011. They focused on values without religious undertones with lots of rhetoric about hard work, tradition, family first etc. These acted as a sort of dog whistle against the left by implying that they were patronizing about immigrants. Most of the ads were in Cantonese or Mandarin, but here's an English version to get the idea

Good solution with all 4 choices, especially moderating on a path to citizenship and economics.

[hopper]

Actually 56% of GOP Voters per Pew Research are for immigration reform. Its the talk radio types that don't want immigration reform.

[Badger]

Actually 56% of GOP Voters per Pew Research are for immigration reform. Its the talk radio types that don't want immigration reform.

Same thing with gun background checks and the like.

[hopper]

Actually 56% of GOP Voters per Pew Research are for immigration reform. Its the talk radio types that don't want immigration reform.

Same thing with gun background checks and the like.

Thats the thing can the Coulter/Hannity/Levin/Ingrahm types enter the 21st Century with the rest of us please? I don't listen to talk radio but on occasion I will turn it on. I don't worship it like some other GOP voters as the gospel. Even John Boehner(former Speaker Of the House) and Trent Lott when he was in the US Senate complained about talk radio.

[hopper]

The idea that social conservatism is the GOP's biggest problem is laughable, with the possible exception of immigration.  By far the biggest issue is economics - broadening appeal on that league will garner far more votes than abandoning the party's most loyal voter base.

The Republican Party should regularly be winning the votes of affluent minorities and minorities with sympathy toward the business community/entrepreneurial spirit/efficient governance, but we get clobbered with those voters.  Why do you think that is?  Because my theory is we come across as a racist and xenophobic party.  A lot.

That's technically correct, but what really matters is the net effect a change will have. That is, if the GOP were to go the libertarianish route, they would have to win over more affluent minorities and socially liberal whites than lose poor/middling socons and anti-immigration types. Let's take a look at the relative size of these groups and how they vote.





Although affluent non-whites are very Democratic, they also are very few in number. Minority votes are clustered in lower income brackets, so even if the GOP didn't have race issues, we would expect minorities to vote heavily Democratic.

Now let's look at the white vote. Whites vote GOP, even at relatively low income levels. I think it's quite unlikely that white guys making $30k a year are voting GOP because they are converts to free market economics. No, these voters are voting GOP primarily due to immigration or religious issues.

What does this mean for GOP strategy? Well for one, focusing on winning over affluent minorities and white social liberals is probably a losing strategy. If the GOP is to make gains among rapidly growing minorities, they will need to appeal further down the economic ladder.

While the GOP needs to moderate on most issues, moderating on economics is the lowest risk way to moderate. Immigration risks losing large numbers of whites who have no other reason to vote GOP, and major social liberalism would be counterproductive among pro-life Hispanic Catholics.

This is a major blind spot for right leaning pundits who are generally fiscally conservative, socially liberal and (surprise, surprise) want the GOP to try to win over people like that. As we become increasingly atomized, it is easier for people like that to mistake their issues with the Republicans for, the Republicans electoral problems at large.

A more effective GOP solution would be:

1) Dramatically moderate on economics, to something resembling Bush era 'compassionate conservatism'. Accept universal health care, and focus on payroll and sales tax cuts, not capital gains cuts.

2) Scale back immigration rhetoric while maintaining a clear difference with the Democrats, to retain poorer white voters.

3) Moderate or drop losing social issues (gay marriage, marijuana), while holding steady on abortion.

4) Employ some of the Canadian Tories' tactics from 2011. They focused on values without religious undertones with lots of rhetoric about hard work, tradition, family first etc. These acted as a sort of dog whistle against the left by implying that they were patronizing about immigrants. Most of the ads were in Cantonese or Mandarin, but here's an English version to get the idea

Reagan and both Bushes depended on Southern racism and the Christian Right to win elections.

Well Reagan and Bush HW won their election in blowouts in the 1980's. They could have won their elections without "The South" probably. True about Bush W. being popular with evangelicals and winning Southern States to win elections. He wasn't a racist though he was just a good ole boy from Texas!


On the economic part of it which is seperate the GOP needs to have a program of upward economic mobility for all people including minorities in order to start winning Presidential Elections again. If they just keep running a Mitt Romney 2012 type of candidate they won't win any Presidential Elections. That kind of candidate went out with Reagan/Bush H.W.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

After the uprising of the Year of Trump
The Republican National Committee
Had leaflets distributed in across the fruited plain
Stating that the base
Had forfeited the confidence of the party leadership
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the party leadership
To dissolve the base
And elect another?