What if the GOP told the South to get lost?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:19:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  What if the GOP told the South to get lost?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: What if the GOP told the South to get lost?  (Read 3052 times)
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 24, 2015, 11:28:40 AM »

What if they were to harp against "Southern backward racism" and whatnot and effectively did they were not welcome in the party? Would voters be more likely to switch sides or form a new party? What would the electoral consequences be, and how long would the GOP need to recover?
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2015, 11:52:30 AM »

lol @ believing the GOP to be some sort of sentient entity with the ability to tell certain constituencies to "get lost"

Things would similarly be much easier for the Democrats if they likewise told the animal rights activists and welfare queens to "get lost" haha



Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2015, 12:30:27 PM »

lol @ believing the GOP to be some sort of sentient entity with the ability to tell certain constituencies to "get lost"

Things would similarly be much easier for the Democrats if they likewise told the animal rights activists and welfare queens to "get lost" haha

I'm think of a presidential candidate supported by the leadership strongly sending the message "we don't want your vote". The first election would look like this most likely, but then what?

Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2015, 12:39:05 PM »

Maybe this, a few cycles later?



5-7 cycles later:

Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2015, 01:45:25 PM »

How is this supposed to work? What might Southerners that have largely conservative beliefs but might not be racist do? And it's not like Democrats are competing for the Southern white racist demographic in the first place.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2015, 02:19:49 PM »

lol @ believing the GOP to be some sort of sentient entity with the ability to tell certain constituencies to "get lost"

Things would similarly be much easier for the Democrats if they likewise told the animal rights activists and welfare queens to "get lost" haha

I'm think of a presidential candidate supported by the leadership strongly sending the message "we don't want your vote". The first election would look like this most likely, but then what?


That's just....not how politics work, for a couple reasons

1) What Republican candidate in their right mind would want to abandon Southern Whites?  After 2014, a majority of the GOP House Caucus is from the South and Romney won 73% of Southern Whites in 2012.  Its not the GOP that is driving the South, the South is driving the GOP.  No GOP candidate would ever be able to become a serious contender for the GOP nomination without a healthy amount of Southern support. 

2) You don't get to pick your supporters.  Simply telling "White racists" to "not vote for you" doesn't change the fact that those voters are still more closely aligned with the Republican platform than they are with the Democrats'.  The only way to achieve some sort of mass Southern exodus from the GOP would require some pretty significant shifts in the GOP platform which don't seem likely because a) political parties are extremely weak in the United States compared to most of the developed world, and Republican candidates do more to mold the party platform than the party apparatus and, b) Southern Whites form such a significant portion of the GOP base that any substantial changes in the GOP platform are unlikely to occur without the South having quite a few, big seats at the table in such discussion.   
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2015, 03:30:20 PM »
« Edited: June 24, 2015, 03:32:54 PM by Governor Simfan34 »

I understand that. What you are saying is true, lIke it or not. But what if it was not?

How is this supposed to work? What might Southerners that have largely conservative beliefs but might not be racist do? And it's not like Democrats are competing for the Southern white racist demographic in the first place.

As you might see, the map has Democrats in the 30-50% range. This leaves 30%-40% for the GOP and the remainder to a New Dixiecrat party. Democrats need only a few more whites to win most of those states if the white vote is split.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2015, 03:34:05 PM »

How is this supposed to work? What might Southerners that have largely conservative beliefs but might not be racist do? And it's not like Democrats are competing for the Southern white racist demographic in the first place.

Indeed, the racists are either not going to vote default for the GOP when they do turnout. So it is fail strategy. What will happen is NC, VA and FL become solid Democratic. MS and GA turn Democratic as well. Thats about it.
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,146
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2015, 05:59:32 PM »

It sounds to me like you're positing the GOP stops playing for White Southerners. The only alternative I can imagine is dumping the vast majority of their money into the midwest/north and southwest, with hopes of massively improving their share among hispanic voters while maxing out the white vote outside of the south.

If that started in 2016, maybe following this whole flag thing, you'd still see some of the strongest Republican southern states staying Atlas blue just out of inertia. But we're assuming the GOP refuses to spend significantly in the region, so a lot of the Democratic stretch goals like Georgia fall. Meanwhile, the GOP might be able to make a few gains outside the south, but over all this is a big Democratic victory. Something like the below.



After sustaining this message for four years, hispanics and non-southern whites might start to take the GOP more seriously. This map might be possible in 2020.



That's a 290-248 Democratic victory. The problem for the GOP is an overall drop in white voter turnout in the south which makes states like Mississippi, Georgia, and North Carolina, which should be in play, difficult mountains to climb. I have a hard time seeing where the GOP could go from here, unless it completely reinvented itself in order to be competitive within cities.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,107
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2015, 06:10:01 PM »

What if they were to harp against "Southern backward racism" and whatnot and effectively did they were not welcome in the party? Would voters be more likely to switch sides or form a new party? What would the electoral consequences be, and how long would the GOP need to recover?

They won't do it.

The Republicans' percentage of the U.S. Popular Vote, in recent presidential elections, has accounted for around 90 percent from white voters.

From their base states among the Old Confederacy … they're at a rate of over 100 percent from white voters.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2015, 06:46:01 PM »

So far, we are seeing more of a Sista Souljah moment from Republicans on "Southern pride" than I ever thought we would while Obama was still president.  It would depend on exactly what they do and how they phrase it.  It's worth noting that, in all likelihood, <10% of US voters are actually neo-Confederate or racist in a mid-20th century sense.  Loudly distancing yourself from those sad people can only pay dividends, even in most of the South due to northern transplants and black conservatives.  Even if a new Dixiecrat style party were to form, it's clear that civil society in 90% of the country would shun anyone who joined it.  I can't see it becoming a factor outside of maybe MS/AL.  So I think the major short term impact would be a GOP recovery in wealthy non-Southern suburbs.  Over the long run, they would start doing better with minorities, but it would take additional effort.
Logged
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2015, 09:27:19 PM »

What if they were to harp against "Southern backward racism" and whatnot and effectively did they were not welcome in the party? Would voters be more likely to switch sides or form a new party? What would the electoral consequences be, and how long would the GOP need to recover?

They won't do it.

The Republicans' percentage of the U.S. Popular Vote, in recent presidential elections, has accounted for around 90 percent from white voters.

From their base states among the Old Confederacy … they're at a rate of over 100 percent from white voters.

More than 100% of their voters in the South are white? How is that possible? Do white Southern voters vote multiple times?
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,107
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2015, 03:55:18 AM »
« Edited: June 25, 2015, 02:22:01 PM by DS0816 »

What if they were to harp against "Southern backward racism" and whatnot and effectively did they were not welcome in the party? Would voters be more likely to switch sides or form a new party? What would the electoral consequences be, and how long would the GOP need to recover?

They won't do it.

The Republicans' percentage of the U.S. Popular Vote, in recent presidential elections, has accounted for around 90 percent from white voters.

From their base states among the Old Confederacy … they're at a rate of over 100 percent from white voters.

More than 100% of their voters in the South are white? How is that possible? Do white Southern voters vote multiple times?

Not exactly what I was saying.

I'm addressing the Republican Party's dependency on the vote from whites nationwide and numerous states.

But, I'm going to correct myself (after having gone over the numbers).…


According to Chuck Todd and Sheldon Gawiser's How Barack Obama: A State-by-State Guide to the Historic 2008 Presidential Election, here were the results in 2008 for states carried by John McCain:

Alabama (65)Sad Whites/Republican 88% = 57.20% | John McCain: 60.32%; Dependency on whites: 94.82%
Alaska (78)Sad Whites/Republican 65% = 50.70% | John McCain: 59.42%; Dependency on whites: 85.32%
Arizona (75)Sad Whites/Republican 59% = 44.25 | John McCain: 53.39%; Dependency on whites: 82.88%
Arkansas (83)Sad Whites/Republican 68% = 56.44% | John McCain: 58.72%; Dependency on whites: 96.11%
Georgia (65)Sad Whites/Republican 76% = 49.40% | John McCain: 52.10%; Dependency on whites: 94.81%
Idaho (90)Sad Whites/Republican 65% = 58.50% | John McCain: 61.21%; Dependency on whites: 95.57%
Kansas (90)Sad Whites/Republican 59% = 53.10% | John McCain: 56.50%; Dependency on whites: 93.98%
Kentucky (85)Sad Whites/Republican 63% = 53.55% | John McCain: 57.37%; Dependency on whites: 93.34%
Louisiana (65)Sad Whites/Republican 84% = 54.60% | John McCain: 58.56%; Dependency on whites: 93.23%
Mississippi (62)Sad Whites/Republican 88% = 54.56% | John McCain: 56.18%; Dependency on whites: 97.11%
Missouri (82)Sad Whites/Republican 57% = 46.74% | John McCain: 49.36%; Dependency on whites: 94.69%
Montana (90)Sad Whites/Republican 52% = 46.80% | John McCain: 49.49%; Dependency on whites: 94.56%
Nebraska (92)Sad Whites/Republicans 59% = 54.28% | John McCain: 56.53%; Dependency on whites: 96.01%
North Dakota (92)Sad Whites/Republican 55% = 50.60% | John McCain: 53.15%; Dependency on whites: 95.20%
Oklahoma (82)Sad Whites/Republican 71% = 58.22% | John McCain: 65.65%; Dependency on whites: 88.68%
South Carolina (71)Sad Whites/Republican 73% = 51.83% | John McCain: 53.87%; Dependency on whites: 96.21%
South Dakota (90)Sad Whites/Republican 56% = 50.40% | John McCain: 53.16%; Dependency on whites: 94.80%
Tennessee (84)Sad Whites/Republican 63% = 52.92% | John McCain: 56.85%; Dependency on whites: 93.08%
Texas (63)Sad Whites/Republican 73% = 45.99% | John McCain: 55.39%; Dependency on whites: 83.02%
Utah (90)Sad Whites/Republican 66% = 59.40% | John McCain: 62.25%; Dependency on whites: 95.42%
West Virginia (94)Sad Whites/Republican 57% = 53.58% | John McCain: 55.60%; Dependency on whites: 96.36%
Wyoming (91)Sad Whites/Republican 66% = 60.06% | John McCain: 64.78%; Dependency on whites: 92.71%


United States Popular Vote of 2008: Whites (74): Republican/John McCain 55% = 40.70% | John McCain (according to this site): 45.60%; Dependency on whites: 89.25%. (And, note of course, that McCain only managed to carry four of his twenty-two states with a lower dependency rate nationwide.)


In 2012, not every state was exit-polled (including Top 10-populous Texas and Georgia); so, I can't go over them.


United States Popular Vote of 2012: Whites (72): Republican/Mitt Romney 59% = 42.48% | Mitt Romney: 47.16%; Dependency on whites: 90.07%.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2015, 12:14:44 PM »

Told the South to get lost?  I'd be baffled and upset.

Told racists to get lost? I'd be ecstatic, and it'd very much help the party's electoral prospects.
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2015, 02:03:27 PM »

Most stupid thread ever.  A party is it's voters whether you like it or not.  If you don't, maybe you should switch to another party.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2015, 02:23:23 PM »

Most stupid thread ever.  A party is it's voters whether you like it or not.  If you don't, maybe you should switch to another party.

Totally agree with your first sentence.

Your second sentence is ridiculous.  If Northern social conservatives who were weary of government intervention (be it on civil rights or any other issue) abandoned the GOP during the '40s, '50s, '60s or '70s, we never get Goldwater or Reagan.  If Northern, pro-civil rights liberals abandon the Democrats during the '20s, '30s or '40s, we never get LBJ signing the CRA as a Democrat.

Unless you're a mindless foot soldier or just one of the statistically absurd rarities who happen to agree with a list of largely unrelated views that the two parties respectively hold, you probably disagree with your party on a few things; that does NOT mean you have to leave it.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2015, 05:05:48 PM »

That's probably what they should do.  If we downplay the social issues, we could open ourselves up to compete not only in swing states, but in more bluish ones as well.  Most of the GOP's strength in the south comes from religious conservatives, and they're so solidly Republican that they will vote for them no matter what. 
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,146
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2015, 05:48:11 PM »

Most stupid thread ever.  A party is it's voters whether you like it or not.  If you don't, maybe you should switch to another party.

No, modern American parties are state ballot lines with an associated clique of politicians, political consultants, pundits, and donors. This is completely different from the traditional conception of a political party, which is defined and influenced by its mass membership.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2015, 11:44:42 AM »

Theyd lose more votes than they would pick up in IL, NY, MA, NJ and CA

Also I recall a whole lot of blacks getting killed by cops in the north. So racism isnt a southern problem alone.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,762
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2015, 01:41:26 PM »

Ga, MS, and SC in addition to WVa will vote GOP no matter what.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,107
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2015, 02:47:52 PM »

Ga, MS, and SC in addition to WVa will vote GOP no matter what.

Georgia is winnable for the Democrats. But, right now they'll have to hit at least 10 percent in the popular-vote margin. And South Carolina is about three points more Republican than the Peach State. Mississippi is attached to Alabama; they've had the vote since 1820 and have voted the same in all except 1840. And I'll go ahead and dismiss West Virginia, for the Democrats, unless they're winning closer to 45 (rather than just 40) states; it's a state in transition (along with Arkansas) and it's not going to carry Democratic if a winning member of that party has only around 30 states in his/her column.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2015, 05:10:49 PM »

Telling the South to get lost would be an extremely bad idea. Now, telling [t]racists[/i] to get lost? Why haven't we done that already?
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2015, 05:39:53 PM »

Telling the South to get lost would be an extremely bad idea. Now, telling [t]racists[/i] to get lost? Why haven't we done that already?

At least OPENLY/overtly, we absolutely have.  Unfortunately, I think some Republicans still make subtle plays for the votes of racists/xenophobes, and that is very disappointing.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,190
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2015, 04:57:14 AM »

Nativism will always play well amongst a certain selection of the electorate, and a natural consequence of such a policy is borderline racist rhetoric from the fringes.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2015, 11:12:42 AM »

Nativism will always play well amongst a certain selection of the electorate, and a natural consequence of such a policy is borderline racist rhetoric from the fringes.

True, but the GOP has always had a very nativist element dating back to the former Whigs; they seem louder and more powerful now than ever.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.07 seconds with 12 queries.