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

[Blue3]

The current GOP base... the Republicans who are most vocal, most active, most likely to vote in the primaries... seem really out of whack with the rest of the party (and even more with the rest of the country), and keep holding it hostage.

The solution is obvious... make those Republicans less likely to vote in primaries, and other Republicans more likely to vote in primaries. Essentially, get a new base of support.

But the big question is... how?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Add super delegates, end winner take it all

[Virginiá]

Appeal to new voters? Whether they like it or not, this is their base. Their strategy to push Democrats out of the South and embracing the religious right worked wonders for a spell, and now it's screwing them over bigly. Since then, they have not really reached out to new voters. Instead, they have deepened their support with one demographic while letting the others slip away. Jokes on them though - working class whites have been going batsh**t crazy for years now, especially post-Obama.

They have only themselves to blame for this mess. Maybe next time they will realize that trading long-term success for short-term electoral gains is a stupid strategy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You can't. In a democracy, parties get the base that they have and must deal with it. More, the base is the party. The American party system is by and large an abomination, but one good thing that can be said about it is that it allows mass participation in the selection of candidates, something badly lacking in most of Europe.

Whatever one might think of them, GOP primary voters have a right to vote for the candidates they prefer. Instead of fantasizing about changing their electorate, the GOP establishment should wonder how their party's base became what it is now. And to do that, they'll have to look right in the mirror.

[Vosem]

That's not where their problem lies. "How do they set up a system where a candidate with less than 40% of the party supporting him cannot get the nomination" is the real question, especially because of how difficult concerted reforms to the primary system are to pull off and more especially because depending on what direction they take the reforms some factions of the party will see themselves becoming more or less empowered.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

That's not where their problem lies. "How do they set up a system where a candidate with less than 40% of the party supporting him cannot get the nomination" is the real question, especially because of how difficult concerted reforms to the primary system are to pull off and more especially because depending on what direction they take the reforms some factions of the party will see themselves becoming more or less empowered.

Ted Cruz got second, so there's clearly a problem...

[Bismarck]

Find a way to get rich suburban people to be politically active. Lower taxes isn't as big of a motivator to go caucus as the people who think God is calling them to.

[Californiadreaming]

The current GOP base... the Republicans who are most vocal, most active, most likely to vote in the primaries... seem really out of whack with the rest of the party (and even more with the rest of the country), and keep holding it hostage.

The solution is obvious... make those Republicans less likely to vote in primaries, and other Republicans more likely to vote in primaries. Essentially, get a new base of support.

But the big question is... how?

Are you talking about Trump's voters or Cruz's voters here, though? Indeed, I simply want to clarify this part.

[Vosem]

That's not where their problem lies. "How do they set up a system where a candidate with less than 40% of the party supporting him cannot get the nomination" is the real question, especially because of how difficult concerted reforms to the primary system are to pull off and more especially because depending on what direction they take the reforms some factions of the party will see themselves becoming more or less empowered.

Ted Cruz got second, so there's clearly a problem...

Ideologically, I don't find Cruz in second to be much of an issue. Regardless, a fair system would remove the influence of early states and remove the possibility of a nominee being selected through vote splits -- say, by a nationwide instant-runoff election. I am basically certain Trump would not have been the winner of such an event, and nearly certain that it would not have been Cruz either.

[Xing]

They need a different platform, which appeals to a different kind of voter. Granted, this would push away the current "Trumpsters," and might take time, resulting in having a weak couple of elections, but this might be how they transform their base and cause the infamous "re-alignment."

[Indy Texas]

That's not where their problem lies. "How do they set up a system where a candidate with less than 40% of the party supporting him cannot get the nomination" is the real question, especially because of how difficult concerted reforms to the primary system are to pull off and more especially because depending on what direction they take the reforms some factions of the party will see themselves becoming more or less empowered.

No, the fact that 40% of your voters would pick someone like Donald Trump is a YUGE problem that isn't going to go away. And that's not even getting into Cruz, who isn't much more electable.

If you want enough sane people to outvote the insane people in your party, you could start by not pandering to the insane people by doing things like pretending global warming doesn't exist and refusing to accept that LGBT people are deserving of civil rights. You've also got the problem of only being concerned about the 0.5% of the population who donates to political campaigns in meaningful amounts when it comes to things like taxes.

[Intell]

They nominated Trump over Cruz and other candidates with no vision, apart from the stale republican brand, that's a positive.

[hopper]

They nominated Trump over Cruz and other candidates with no vision, apart from the stale republican brand, that's a positive.

Well you touched on it their Presidential Candidates in 2016 didn't run on a "vision" so thats why they will lose again in 2016.  As for getting a new base they don't need a new base they need to expand onto their existing base.

[hopper]

That's not where their problem lies. "How do they set up a system where a candidate with less than 40% of the party supporting him cannot get the nomination" is the real question, especially because of how difficult concerted reforms to the primary system are to pull off and more especially because depending on what direction they take the reforms some factions of the party will see themselves becoming more or less empowered.

Ted Cruz got second, so there's clearly a problem...

Ideologically, I don't find Cruz in second to be much of an issue. Regardless, a fair system would remove the influence of early states and remove the possibility of a nominee being selected through vote splits -- say, by a nationwide instant-runoff election. I am basically certain Trump would not have been the winner of such an event, and nearly certain that it would not have been Cruz either.

He is too right-wing to win a Presidential Election nowadays.

[hopper]

Appeal to new voters? Whether they like it or not, this is their base. Their strategy to push Democrats out of the South and embracing the religious right worked wonders for a spell, and now it's screwing them over bigly. Since then, they have not really reached out to new voters. Instead, they have deepened their support with one demographic while letting the others slip away. Jokes on them though - working class whites have been going batsh**t crazy for years now, especially post-Obama.

They have only themselves to blame for this mess. Maybe next time they will realize that trading long-term success for short-term electoral gains is a stupid strategy.

The Republicans screwed themselves mainly in some Northeastern States like Connecticut and Delaware. They really didn;t screw themselves anywhere else by catering to Southener's political tastes. Vermont, Massachusetts and RI would still be Dem if the Republican didn't cater to Southerner's political tastes. NJ, NY, and MD have been urbanizing with increasing minorty populations for a couple decades now and those area's in recent history have controlled by Dems except for NYC with Guliani in the 90's and Bloomberg in the 00's being the mayors respectively.

[Blue3]

What if... the Democratic and Republican primary ballots were forced to be combined, and all primary voters had to vote for both their favorite Republican candidate and their favorite Democratic candidate?

[Virginiá]

Appeal to new voters? Whether they like it or not, this is their base. Their strategy to push Democrats out of the South and embracing the religious right worked wonders for a spell, and now it's screwing them over bigly. Since then, they have not really reached out to new voters. Instead, they have deepened their support with one demographic while letting the others slip away. Jokes on them though - working class whites have been going batsh**t crazy for years now, especially post-Obama.

They have only themselves to blame for this mess. Maybe next time they will realize that trading long-term success for short-term electoral gains is a stupid strategy.

The Republicans screwed themselves mainly in some Northeastern States like Connecticut and Delaware. They really didn;t screw themselves anywhere else by catering to Southener's political tastes. Vermont, Massachusetts and RI would still be Dem if the Republican didn't cater to Southerner's political tastes. NJ, NY, and MD have been urbanizing with increasing minorty populations for a couple decades now and those area's in recent history have controlled by Dems except for NYC with Guliani in the 90's and Bloomberg in the 00's being the mayors respectively.

I mentioned the south and religion separately but in this context I consider them intertwined. Religious influence is crippling the GOP's ability to appeal to Millennials and most likely subsequent generations. How do you appeal to those people when you're forced to take uncompromising social issue positions due to the depth of religious voters in your base? There is probably a way for generic Republicans to do it, but more or less they have not found it nor have shown an overwhelming willingness to do so. The pockets of racism that come from having the south as your main base of support does not help with minorities, either.

[hopper]

That's not where their problem lies. "How do they set up a system where a candidate with less than 40% of the party supporting him cannot get the nomination" is the real question, especially because of how difficult concerted reforms to the primary system are to pull off and more especially because depending on what direction they take the reforms some factions of the party will see themselves becoming more or less empowered.

No, the fact that 40% of your voters would pick someone like Donald Trump is a YUGE problem that isn't going to go away. And that's not even getting into Cruz, who isn't much more electable.

If you want enough sane people to outvote the insane people in your party, you could start by not pandering to the insane people by doing things like pretending global warming doesn't exist and refusing to accept that LGBT people are deserving of civil rights. You've also got the problem of only being concerned about the 0.5% of the population who donates to political campaigns in meaningful amounts when it comes to things like taxes.

Well I agree with you on your first couple of sentences except I think Cruz might have had a better shot at Florida and Colorado than Trump.

I don't get the big deal about the gay marriage thing. I don't think it ranks in the average voter in the electorate top 5 of important issues that they are going to vote on in 2016.

I do agree with you and I think I said this to you last week that I wish the Republicans would get out of the idea about not increasing taxes on anybody because of Bush H.W.'s "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" 1988 Pledge which is a pledge that he broke in 1990. Its just stupid of todays Republican Party to think that way because of some pledge that was broke 25 years ago which is a pledge of a faux-fiscal austerity measure.

[hopper]

Appeal to new voters? Whether they like it or not, this is their base. Their strategy to push Democrats out of the South and embracing the religious right worked wonders for a spell, and now it's screwing them over bigly. Since then, they have not really reached out to new voters. Instead, they have deepened their support with one demographic while letting the others slip away. Jokes on them though - working class whites have been going batsh**t crazy for years now, especially post-Obama.

They have only themselves to blame for this mess. Maybe next time they will realize that trading long-term success for short-term electoral gains is a stupid strategy.

The Republicans screwed themselves mainly in some Northeastern States like Connecticut and Delaware. They really didn;t screw themselves anywhere else by catering to Southener's political tastes. Vermont, Massachusetts and RI would still be Dem if the Republican didn't cater to Southerner's political tastes. NJ, NY, and MD have been urbanizing with increasing minorty populations for a couple decades now and those area's in recent history have controlled by Dems except for NYC with Guliani in the 90's and Bloomberg in the 00's being the mayors respectively.

I mentioned the south and religion separately but in this context I consider them intertwined. Religious influence is crippling the GOP's ability to appeal to Millennials and most likely subsequent generations. How do you appeal to those people when you're forced to take uncompromising social issue positions due to the depth of religious voters in your base? There is probably a way for generic Republicans to do it, but more or less they have not found it nor have shown an overwhelming willingness to do so. The pockets of racism that come from having the south as your main base of support does not help with minorities, either.

I think about the South and Religion we are talking about the GOP not being for SSM right? Is that where you are trying to get at?

I don't think "The South" has anything to do with having minority appeal or lack there of to minority voters. Its about having a vision. Personally, I don't think Hillary or Trump has a vision for the future. Its just that she is less hated than Trump with women and minority groups so thats why she is winning. Thats what it boils down to right now. I wish we had better candidates on both sides of the aisle but thats not who got nominated by the voters.

Oh yeah about NJ I was sort of wrong since Brett Schundler was the mayor of Jersey City as a Republican in the 90's. The Dems probably still controlled the Hudson County Burb's like Union City, West New York, Weehawken, and Guttenberg. The Republicans probably still controlled some of the Southeast Bergen County Burb's back then put not really now.

[anthonyjg]

What if... the Democratic and Republican primary ballots were forced to be combined, and all primary voters had to vote for both their favorite Republican candidate and their favorite Democratic candidate?

This could actually have a negative effect. I think a lot of people are really partisan and would try to sabotage the other party and we would end up with terrible candidates. I feel like most people wouldn't vote for their favorite candidate from the opposing party but rather whomever is the least electable.

[5280]

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.

[RFayette]

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.

[Angel of Death]

I don't see how, in light of what just happened, the Republicans won't follow the Democrats and force all primaries from now on to award delegates (at least somewhat) proportionally.

[Indy Texas]

I don't see how, in light of what just happened, the Republicans won't follow the Democrats and force all primaries from now on to award delegates (at least somewhat) proportionally.

Because 2020 could just as easily end up with an inverse (and more typical for Republicans) situation - the party decides on a single acceptable nominee, but that nominee can't win the nomination decisively until very late because he keeps having to share delegates with right-wing candidates who are only getting 15-20% of the vote each.

[RINO Tom]

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.