Talk Elections

...and your goal is to win back several states the party lost in 2008, while also making serious advances in others states, closing the popular vote gap though not winning...

What do you tell the GOP to do to win back...

Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, Florida, Ohio and Nevada 

And how do you advise the party to make it close in...

Pennsylvania, Washington, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Oregon and Michigan?

Feel free to add others as you wish. 

Step one: Drop the mindless social conservative rhetoric that alienates many New England and coastal voters. Many of these people are moderately libertarian, and as long as the Democrats build a new 'Solid South' in those two areas you will be hard pressed in the future to win elections. The Mormons and the rednecks will vote for you anyway, just as the South voted for Al Smith in 1928.

Step two: As a corollary to the above, stop feeding the real-life racial trolls through anti-immigrant rhetoric. Immigration is good for business, and hence good for Americans; and as long as you continue whining about an illusory racially pure America of the past, you will never again win Colorado or New Mexico or Nevada, and without these you cannot win the Presidency.

Step three: Focus purely on the economy. Demonstrate to voters that conservative principles, applied intelligently and with an eye towards maximizing economic efficiency, is better for them and their pocket-books than big government programmes. A good Republican President in the future will probably be indistinguishable from Bill Clinton - or Jack Kennedy.

Take the gloves off and destroy the Democrats. You didn't beat John Kerry by being nice. John McCain's good manners (compared to the Bush campaigns') didn't do him any good.

Similar to what Einzige said, I think the Republicans should focus more on economic issues. One of the most important things that they have to do is eliminate the perception that the Republicans are a white-only party. They must reach out to minorities, the most obvious ones being hispanics, who are fairly conservative on social issues, and asians, who are fairly conservative on economic issues. If they could win the Hispanic and perhaps Asian votes, then the Republicans could take back Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, perhaps even making serious inroads into California. If they were to moderate on social issues, then they could perhaps make a few inroads in the Northeast, though more likely on the congressional level.

Yes but the social conservatives also control a good deal of the party, they don't just pander to them. When moderate republicans tried to soften the social platform in 96 they were crucified.

I agree with many of these Democrats. We need to focus more on economics and why free-market principles are the best way for the economy, not harp on why abortion is bad and why gays shouldn't have rights. We can keep these positions without becoming obsessed with them. As the general populous because more and more accepting of these views, less and less will want to hear it and the party will suffer.

I agree to an extent. The Republicans should try to be a big tent again on social issues, but I see their dilemma here: if they go too far they will implode. Maybe a states rights position is the best they can do, as repugnant as I personally find it that's still a massive improvement over what they're favoring now.


I disagree. Other than a small, increasingly isolated fringe represented by people like Tancredo most Republicans are not arguing against immigration.. Although a majority of the American public actually feels that we have too much of that (a source of growing friction). They are at most arguing the law should be upheld, a position which even many hispanics are for. The Republicans do need to reach out to minorities more (some policies like vouchers help), and tone down all the code words they've historically used to win though. That isn't a viable strategy. But I'm not holding my breath here.


I agree for the most part. However, while Clinton was pretty much a moderate economically Kennedy was a totally different animal. Let's not forget much of the great society, price controls, etc. were his ideas.

I want to comment on one thing in particular:


He also cut the top tax bracket from ~90% during the Eisenhower years to under 75%, which is a larger per capita tax cut than that delivered by Ronald Reagan.

That's just one issue though. Going by that I could argue Bush is an economic liberal.

This is the Democrats' position on the economy?  I would have never guessed. :P

It is mine, and Mint's, and a not-insignificant number of other Democrat's who support free-market economics and would vote Republican on the issue if you nitwits wouldn't pander o the lowest-common-denominator of social bigots.

Or, alternatively, I suspect that the Republicans will get one more thrashing during the 2010 midterms over their resistance to the stimulus package and will re-shape themselves as the modern-day inheritors of William Jennings Bryan, running to the left of the Democrats economically but retaining their zombie-like affection for the social stratification of the 19th century.

Most Americans don't support "free-market principles." I doubt McCain would have carried ten states if everyone had voted solely on economic issues last year. Of course, you're also right in noting the long-term decline of social conservatism, so I'm tempted to just say you're screwed and leave it at that. ;)

Honestly, though, if I were a Republican strategist, I would keep waving the flag and screaming about "pansy-ass, tea-sipping" Europeans and scary brown people. The political climate is bound to get better for the right eventually, and this formula will work (again) when that time comes. Becoming some kind of half-assed Libertarian Party would lose a lot more votes than it gains.

I can tell you now what they're going to (eventually) do, and I can do it in such a way that even our social conservative friends can understand it: through pictures.

()

()

...yes...and what has pushed me away from the free markets has percisely been those trying to apply their social rightism to economic rightism.

()

Pink: Weak Democrat
Red: Strong Democrat
Turqoise: Weak GOP
Blue: Strong GOP


This may just be the map of the future. I think the GOP should court the Hispanics in the Southwest, and try to appease the Midwesterners. Iowa will be a swing state for a while (though not this year) and vote for their favorite candidate. North Carolina and Virginia will turn DEM, but not so diffrent then Minnesota this year. New Hampshire and Maine will lean DEM but won't be out of reach. Anyway an alright scenario for the GOP.

My advice would be a fifty state strategy.

The Republicans did take the gloves off. Repeatedly. The GOP pretty much accused Obama of being in the bed with terrorists.

The verdict on whether one was destroyed is often determined by who wins... Obama would have been "destroyed" by the GOP if McCain had won, even if he used the same tactics.

While I love what Einzige is saying, and would be in heaven if the party actually adopted these principles, I don't know if the proposed reforms would really cure the party. Sure, we need to tone down the rhetoric on wedge issues... but as much as I hate to admit it, we (rational, Rockefeller Republicans) do take the Religious Right for granted...

It doesn't matter anyway, since within twenty years all those pissant rednecks that you are presently in collusion with will be lining up Crosses of Gold along Wall Street to crucify the brokers - and you'll have long been voting Democratic.

Drop the economic libertarianism, drop the globalism, drop the dixie accent.

So you believe there is no hope to save the party from the "pissant rednecks"?

No. This is a natural evolution of the Parties: the Republicans from economically/moderately socially conservative to populist/hardline social conservative; the Democrats from populist/slightly socially conservative to economically moderate/socially liberal. The Republicans will probably be the 'left' Party economically speaking in 20 years, and the impetus for this transformation is all the poor white people the Republicans grew to rely on in the last three decades.

But everything comes around in the end. The influx of blacks into the newly populist Republican Party (they seem to like that sort of thing) will drive many racialists out, as it comes to be viewed as 'the black party', and eventually, in forty years, the Republicans will be the liberal Party, and the Democrats the conservative, just as it was in that first election of 1860.

That's my prediction at any rate.

That's probably what they will do (scary brown people and overeducated, latte-drinking liberals), but I can assure you it will not work because (1)  it won't be long before the brown people outnumber the white people and (2) the internet and technology will make future generations even more open-minded.

What do you mean by "scary brown people"?

Black, hispanics

When and in what context have Republicans screamed about them?

You don't have to scream about it.  When your party constantly opposes immigration, when until recently you had senators such as Jesse Helms and when many of your party's supporters are racists and when Obama is dangerous for the country because he's "exotic", it's pretty clear to me that the party still embraces such beliefs.

They've never opposed immigration.  They oppose illegal immigration. 


So you attribute Jesse Helms to the entire party? 


When did anyone say this??

Paul, no offense, but what country do you live in?  You honestly don't believe your party is associated with everything I mentioned?

'Hispanics' are gradually joining 'white' America and biracials are on their way to doing so. I suspect the percentage of nonwhite people will peak in 2020's census then drop from there. Odds are by 2050 we'll be 90+% 'white' but a majority of those 'whites' will be biracials and or latin.

There are definitely people who make those associations.  But I find them to be ignorant.    Similarly, I find Republicans who identify Democrats as "appeasers" and "communists" to be rather uninsightful.  I don't associate the Democratic party with those who call John McCain a murderer and George W. Bush a war criminal.  Painting with such a broad brush isn't the best way to get your arguments across.   

Here is the exchange I took issue with...


Oppose the GOP positions on immigration reform, welfare reform, etc., if you want, but the "Republicans are racist" accusation is seriously played-out.

Why would you want to campaign in states outside "Real America"?

It might be in your case and good for you, but as long as all the racists in this country continue to vote for the Republican party, that perception will exist.

Did it ever occur to you that there are racists who vote for Democrats as well?  Even those who vote exclusively for the Democratic Party?  These perceptions will exist so long as people like you continue to perpetuate them. 

There is no such thing as "real America".

It's called sarcasm.

I don't think conservative positions on things like crime, welfare, immigration, etc. are necessarily prejudiced obviously. There are logical arguments to be made for deterrence, self reliance, etc. However, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people who hold those position do so out of resentment OR want to appeal to people who feel that way. That's the strategy that people like Atwater, Rove, etc. have employed.

I think most would argue that it's people like Chip Saltzman or Trent Lott who do that, but if it makes you feel better to think it's my fault, so be it.

You obviously believe that racism is racism only when it happens toward non whites.

Oh no, not at all.  But it's kind of hard for a racist minority to have the impact on elections, laws etc. a racist majority does.  But I certainly agree that racism goes both ways.   

Oh, I'll absolutely admit there is a significant voter block in the South that still has a certain level of racial animosity, and I'll admit the Republicans play to it pretty often, and effectively (Willie Horton, S.C.- Rove Push Polling, etc.), but your assertion that:


...is truly magnificent hyperbole, comparable to a conservative claiming "Most Democrats are bigots, they hate Christians," equally false, and equally nauseating.

()

All those states in blue? Those are the only states to shift towards the Republican Party this year. Arizona is acceptable; those Southern states are not. Because they were the only states to trend towards the Republicans, it is more than fair to say that most Republicans, at least after the 2009 elections, are racists.

I'm having trouble organizing my thoughts into a clear message, so bear with me:

1. Check out the racists up in Massachusetts.

2. Your argument is cyclical:

The South is racist because it is Republican.
The Republicans are racist because they are in the South.

3. I didn't vote for Barack Obama, I'm a registered and self-identifying Republican, am I racist?

4. "Most" Republicans "hate" blacks... those are your words... are you willing to stand by them as not the least bit hyperbolic? We're not talking about a subconscious xenophobia that effects one's views on immigration, we're talking about 51% of the Republican Party actively hating black people.

5. Apparently Alaska didn't vote.

Kerry was the home-state candidate in '04. It was natural that Massachusetts ought to trend slightly more Republican, since they basically maxed out four years ago.


No; my argument is that the South is racist, and the Republicans today are mostly Southerners, and so Republicans are mostly racist.


Did you not vote for him because he is black?


I'm more than willing to believe 51% of Republican voters dislike/despise/hate blacks, and, when added to the number that hate Mexicans, that's probably considerably higher. I'd be willing to bet everything I have that an outright majority of Republican voters are racists, and you'd be a fool not to agree.


Alaska doesn't have counties.

Pardon me if I steal your form.


You're absolutely right, and I did not take that into account. In my defense, I'm very tired.


I misunderstood your premise. So it is the Southern-ness that causes the racism, not the Republicanism? Well, this argument is slightly more palatable.


Of course not... I apologize for this statement, actually... perhaps I'm taking your vitriolic attacks on Republicans personally.


So, at the very least, 24% of the electorate hates blacks?

If I am a fool, so be it.



Hmm... I'll try not to be glib in the future.

Get a red avatar already

Why are you such an asshole?  You seem like a smart guy and I'm genuinely interested in most of your opinions, but I can't help but roll my eyes whenever I see a new post from you.  Make your arguments and keep it moving.  You don't have to make every damn post out to be like your leading a revolution. 



No.  If you've paid attention to my posts since I've joined this forum you'd notice that it's quite the opposite. 

I'm having a hard time following the "it's unacceptable for states to shift towards the Republicans" argument. So what if they did? It could be racism, but if you look closely, the counties where a lot of people live actually swung towards to Democrats, yo.

I mean at first glimpse, Tennessee is totally blue, but if you look a the red counties and compare with this:

()

The majority of the densely populated areas swung towards the Democrats, and it's the same in the Deep South. So I don't understand you in saying that the whole South is racist...

This, I'm almost certain now, is what will eventually happen. It's funny that many of the responses here say things like "emphasize free market economics" and "appeal more to minorities" when in reality these two strategies almost directly contradict each other. The Republican's hardline insistence on an unregulated economy is the  main factor that doomed them among minorities in 2008, and I highly doubt these groups are going to be more receptive to it in 4-8 years time. Considering how a lot of Hispanics tend to be somewhat socially conservative or at least moderate and judging by the Black vote on Prop 8, it's clear that it was not the Republicans' social views that made them unpalatable to most visible minorities.

I suppose it's possible that if a much larger proportion of Hispanics or Blacks enter the upper middle class, then free-market principles could be used to effectively appeal to them, but such a fundamental demographic shift is probably at least a generation away given the current state of the economy and the gradual nature of economic change. Although (like many moderates) I personally would love to see a libertarian-leaning Republican party, in the short-to-medium such a strategy is just not electorally feasible. Barring some massive improvement in the economy, their only chance is probably to become the more economically liberal party to lure in minorities/working-class Democrats while retaining their social conservatism (which actually doesn't alienate too large a swathe of the aforementioned groups). The downside of course is that you probably lose a lot of moderate/libertarian Republicans to the Democrats, but these groups really aren't that electorally significant in the current climate and should be easily outweighed by the other potential gains made with certain minorities/working-class whites.   

I'm more than willing to believe 51% of Republican voters dislike/despise/hate blacks, and, when added to the number that hate Mexicans, that's probably considerably higher. I'd be willing to bet everything I have that an outright majority of Republican voters are racists, and you'd be a fool not to agree.
[/quote]

Are you serious? that has to be the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.

Democratic support for John Kerry maxed out in a couple of counties in Massachusetts in 2004.


I look at the map and I see the culture of the Ozarks and Appalachians. Little of that area voted for Kerry in 2004, anyway. It's not sympathetic to the exotic, and it is better described as conservative than as racist. People there know what a black person is, but they just couldn't figure out Obama. Obama did little campaigning there because such was inefficient.

In 2012 Obama has a record upon which to run -- or if you are a GOP optimist, to run from.


Of course not. Neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin is racist; look at the family photos, and note the absence of rhetorical bigotry on race.


Not mine. But most Republican politicians have little to offer to most blacks -- whether in urban America irrespective of income -- or in the rural South, where political life polarizes along ethnic lines into the worst sort of machine politics: Chicago corruption without the efficiency.  The GOP loses blacks whether they are the suburban middle class (where the GOP did unusually badly with all ethnic groups, so it wasn't only race) because they misunderstand Suburbia -- and they don't reach poor blacks in the South as they reach poor whites.

The only "growth" constituency for the GOP in 2008 was poor whites, a capricious bloc of voters. If I were a GOP leader I would be concerned.   


Favorite son daughter effect, as in Arizona, and it would be excused.

Win back everything, and my advice on how to do this would be to stop being insane intolerant jerks. :)

Try, and when it doesn't work, give up.

Why did you have to resurrect this thread?  The absurdity I've just re-read has left me nauseous.

pbrower2a resurrects many threads.

Cockiness and self-righteousness among the mass support do not lose elections for the party. A reputation for unresponsiveness, corruption, and incompetence among elected leaders and their staffs does. The GOP had the Dubya era to live down  -- and still does.

That is true, but unresponsiveness, corruption, and incompetence, among other things, are often correlated or preceded with cockiness and self-righteousness. Remember that many Republicans thought they had a permanent majority just two short years before they lost control of both houses of congress.

Also, it is unclear how long Bush will hang over the GOP. Hoover haunted the Republicans for decades, yet Nixon and the Watergate Scandal was quickly forgotten which allowed Reagan to be elected in a 46 state landslide.

...and maybe that is because Watergate had nothing to do with economics, and the economic crisis of the late 1970s/early 1980s (which helped Reagan win) took place under Carter, a Democrat?

I guess the point I was trying to make was that we cannot know. However bad a parties public image becomes, if a leader, particularly a president, of the other party is just as bad or worse, the voters will quickly forget the predecessor's flaws and incompetence, which in turn helps the party. If Obama is the second coming of Carter (not likely, but possible) Republicans will look pretty good in comparison.

And yes, I realize the Watergate Scandal and Nixon probably wasn't a good example of the point I was trying to make. Bush may hang over the GOP for a few decades, or a few years depending on Obama's performance.

I would be inclined to concur as well.  If the economy even becomes tolerable and Obama is still President other areas outside of the South could see a shift towards the GOP.  I've harped on Philadelphia, but I've also heard urban whites in places like Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh and Cincinnatti having similar sentiment.  Unfortunately, race pandering works both ways and quite well in some areas for both major parties.

In 1932, FDR asked his running mate John Nance Garner if Garner had any advice on how to win the election.

Garner replied, "Stay alive until November".

That is pretty good advice.  In case you hadn't noticed, Republicans already have a lead on the generic ballot.  Expect it to grow.

Buy gold.  Sell dollars.

Also, vote Arnold because he will solve all of Gray Davis' budget problems.

You "forum legends" crack me up.

Watch the generic ballot numbers.  When six months go by and I'm proven right, we'll see what you think then.

And what cracks me up is that people think ideology and not events are going to drive political development over the next few years.

Prattle on about the 'generic ballot' numbers, I personally don't think generic ballot numbers are a proper way to judge a party's situation. It's sort of like asking "Pizza vs. Pasta" it's so vague it's meaningless. I like pepperoni pizza more than macaroni, but I like spaghetti more than fruit pizza! My point is that asking "generic" questions in this area is stupid, because no one can properly poll a "Dem vs Republican" issue until we actually know the candidates.

In any case, I'm not sure how you can cling dearly to that one thing considering that hispanics and asians, the two largest growing minority groups, are trending against you, young people are trending against you (and have been for a long time), certain key swing areas & states are trending against you (and have been for a long time), Obama's approvals have remained in roughly the same area so far, a record low number of people identify as Republicans, voters have been ditching the Republican party steadily in critical states, people strongly disapprove of congressional Republicans, and people deeply distrust Republican competence on the economy and favor the Democrats by wide margins.

(I posted a long rebuttal to SS about this, I'm :( no one responded.) (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=95779.msg1991812#msg1991812)

If all that changes in 6 months, then hot damn, I'll leave Atlas, but I think you folks desperately need to come to the bitter realization that people don't like your party right now, at all, and have been slowly trending against you for a decade, and you're probably stuck out of power for a good long time. To make your argument "Anything can happen!" renders any discussion on this site pointless, so I don't even know why you're participating if that's the case.


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by that. You're either making a "duh" statement so obvious I'm not getting it or you've mastered the Sam Spade non-statement statement.

People tend to dismiss polls when the polls don't look good.

The Republicans are doing pretty well on a generic ballor for a party on the verge of oblivion but this runs against the narrative you prefer so you dismiss it.


Frankly, your analysis of demographic groups is awfully superficial.  To say that groups x, y, and z are trending away from the Republicans in recent years means nothing.  What matters is that Americans generally, not sub-groups of Americans, have been trending away from Republicans.  Breaking it up into demographic groups focuses on the trees instead of the forest.

Why have Americans been trending away from Republicans?  George W. Bush, that's why.

The central theme of the 2006 and 2008 Democratic victories were that they were against Bush.  In 2010, the winning theme for Republicans will be that they are against Obama and his policies, policies that will fail to generate an economic recovery (In fact, they will deepen our economic problems).

To focus on a particluar state or a particular demographic misses the point.  There was a big shift in general attitudes between 2004 and 2006, a shift that seen across demographic groups.  Americans shifted, not latinos or Asians or the state of Colorado.  This shift was not driven by anything other than George Bush's seemingly endless failures as President.


Yes, he's managed to keep his approval numbers among likely voters at 57% three and a half whole months into his Presidency.  I guess that means the Republicans should just hang their cleats up, eh?

Like I've said to you before, the economy is not recovering anytime soon and the failure of the economy to recover will sap those numbers badly.  I've seen Presidents who seemed invincible at one point be brought low by economic suffering before.  George H.W. Bush can tell you all about that.


Except that Republicans are closing the gap on most of the important issues.  The Democrat advantage on the economy is only 1% now.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues


I'm not arguing anything can happen.

I'm arguing that I have a good idea that a particular thing will happen.

The economy is in the midst of an extended period of decline and that the incumbent party will be blamed for their failure to handle the country's problems.  That is not an 'anything can happen' argument.  It argues that a particular outcome is overwhelmingly more likely than any other outcome.


Again, the point is that demographic shifts and trends in particular states are not what matters now.

What matters is the economy and events related to the economy (And to a lesser extent, geopolitical events like whether there is another terrorist attack and whether Iran gets the bomb).

Pay your consultants whatever you want for whatever strategies you like.  At the end of the day, they do not matter.  If the economy recovers, it will cement a long period of Democratic control in American politics.  If it does not, the the Republicans will get a chance to do better at solving the problems faced by ordinary Americans.

The idea that my comments are non-committal statements is silly.  I've laid my position out clearly that by 2012, Barack Obama will lose re-election because of the economy and that many Democrats will lose their seats in Congress a well.

I have to disagree with you on these demographic trends. Yes, those groups trended more democratic than the nation as a whole, but most of the nation trended democratic anyway. I suspect that if Republicans tone down the social conservatism, and rid their party of neo-cons, they could win the youth vote. As for hispanics, I think they really would've voted like white voters if it weren't for the housing crisis and harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from some GOP candidates.

Yes, people distrust the GOP, but after 2-4 years of democrats controlling the two elected branches of government, voters may start returning to the GOP. Republicans seem to be slowly changing their positions on foreign policy, as well as returning to their fiscal constraint, economically conservative roots. I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP made significant gains in the house, and maybe even some in the senate, simply because party leaders realize they have to be more inclusive. So youth, asians, and hispanics are trending Democrat for now, but this could quickly change given the right circumstances.

It will take time for the GOP to re-establish the brand, which means that GOP candidates will need to establish themselves as fiscal conservatives with genuine solutions to problems that the Democrats (including Obama) either don't address or can't address. 
I have to disagree with you on these demographic trends. Yes, those groups trended more democratic than the nation as a whole, but most of the nation trended democratic anyway. I suspect that if Republicans tone down the social conservatism, and rid their party of neo-cons, they could win the youth vote. As for hispanics, I think they really would've voted like white voters if it weren't for the housing crisis and harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from some GOP candidates.

I don't see current young voters becoming pro-business conservatives until they see major reforms of our economic system. They have seen American capitalism at its worst in decades and they have seen only that. Not until they start finding success as owner-operators of small businesses will they have any cause to vote Republican -- such as the low-tax, low-service agenda that one associates with conservatives. I remain convinced that the formation of small businesses is the long-term solution to economic decline (and we have been in economic decline since about 2000)..