The key to the GOP is winning back moderate, suburban voters

[sg0508]

which until the late 90s, used to favor republicans.  To those that believe the party's movement to the right hasn't killed us, look no further than the northeast or midwest where suburban votes make the difference.

-In my home state (and I'm a moderate republican), we used to DESTROY democrats in suburbia (Long Island and upstate NY).  We would only lose because the boroughs are overwhelmingly democratic.

-PA used to be our state.  Suburban voters around Philly and Pitt used to put us over the top and we could actually get 30% of the Philly vote.  Now, we're lucky to garnish 20% and in that state, those suburban votes moved the state blue.

-IL used to be our state but the surrounding suburbs of Cooke County (Schaumburg), etc have moved left and we've lost those votes.  IL voted for the GOP in every election from 68-88 because of our moderate voters.

-MI for the exact same reason,

-CT/DE/NJ- These were red states guys.  We used to wipe the floor in suburbia here and not anymore.  Some say that Buchanan's Culture Wars speech ended our reign here and it might be true considering we haven't won in any of these states since, although Jodi Rell is an excellent moderate.

-OR/WA used to be our states for the same reason.
-CA for the same reason although major changes in demographics were a big contributing factor for losing the state.

-CO is quickly turning to crap, as is VA because we haven't kept up with demographical changes and the political movement associated with them.

The moderate voters always swing elections and we used to own these votes.  How do we get them back fellow republicans?  Or, is the party just too far right at this point? That's why I've argued that in these bluish states, we need to bite the bullet and start nominating the Mark Kirk's, Lincoln Chafees, Olympia Snowes, etc in these states, people that are pro choice, believe in gay rights to some extent and connect with moderate voters.

What is the profile of these voters?  White, middle to upper middle class, white collar, well-educated, socially moderate and fiscally moderate/conservative.  Those used to be our voters.  We need to find a way to get them back.

[sg0508]

It's also interesting to consider the 1988 race because Bush's performance in the suburbs vs Dukakis was the difference in that year.  The suburban votes won us PA, MD, IL, MI, CO, OH, CT, DE, NJ, ME and CA, states that since then, have moved away from us.  WA/OR bucked the trend and that was also our last solid push for NY.

What fools us is that Bush did poorly among rural voters but we don't exactly rack up huge vote totals there and that's why Dukakis won a lot of counties that democrats typically don't win, but he still lost those big states.  Had Dukakis done better in suburbia, that election turns out far closer than the results showed.

[Padfoot]

The GOP is definitely going to have to bite the bullet on gay rights.  Take a look at these:



It is very clear that the vast majority of people are in favor of increasing hate crimes protection and fighting discrimination in the workplace.  There's even a clear majority in favor of health benefits for same-sex partners and civil unions.



And this graph sends home the point that people's opinions on gay marriage are changing rapidly enough that there could realistically be a majority of Americans who favor it by 2016.  Opposing equal rights for gays is a losing issue for the GOP and the sooner they abandon it, the better off they'll be in the long run.

[Frodo]

As a Democrat who keeps getting bugged by his more liberal counterparts to (re)join the GOP, allow me to offer a note of advice:

What you want to have happen ain't gonna happen as long as the party is seemingly convinced that the reason why they keep losing is because they aren't faithful to conservative precepts.  For moderates and moderate-conservatives in the GOP, they might be better off in the long run if they just let the party nominate the most conservative candidate they can find, who happens to represent everything non-Republicans have come to hate about the GOP at least for the 2012 election cycle.  And then, if all goes 'well' and according to plan, and he or she goes down in crushing defeat (or better yet, a defeat of landslide proportions), you all can pick up the pieces and start rebuilding in time for 2016.  

The hardcore conservatives feel that it is their turn to have their moment in the sun -I say let them have it.

[Vepres]

As a Democrat who keeps getting bugged by his more liberal counterparts to (re)join the GOP, allow me to offer a note of advice:

What you want to have happen ain't gonna happen as long as the party is seemingly convinced that the reason why they keep losing is because they aren't faithful to conservative precepts.  For moderates and moderate-conservatives in the GOP, they might be better off in the long run if they just let the party nominate the most conservative candidate they can find, who happens to represent everything non-Republicans have come to hate about the GOP at least for the 2012 election cycle.  And then, if all goes 'well' and according to plan, and he or she goes down in crushing defeat (or better yet, a defeat of landslide proportions), you all can pick up the pieces and start rebuilding in time for 2016.  

The hardcore conservatives feel that it is their turn to have their moment in the sun -I say let them have it.

When they talk about straying from their principles, I believe they were referring to the deficit spending under Bush.

I who said this, but the GOP needs to return to its principles, do what they say they're going to do, but also be open to those who only agree with them on 75% of the issues if it means winning in a liberal state.

[sg0508]

That's a great chart about gay rights and it signifies that we are progressing and becoming more tolerant, except in the south, which is all the party has.

Again, I'm no fool and I know I don't represent what our party is.  I'm not a Bible Belter and I pride myself in being pro choice and for gay rights, but it's the reason we've lost surburban voters.

Things like this is how suburbia thinks in addition to balancing a budget and keeping taxes/spending low. 

Having gone to college down south, I know what the real GOP is and while some openly admit that the party as a whole is not electable nationwide, they don't care.  They are not willing to tolerate nonconformists in the party.  Even if it means losing, that's good enough for them

[CJK]

Of course they need to win back suburbia. What else could they try to win back--big cities?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I would vote GOP if they would moderate their position on abortion.

[sg0508]

Shadow- doesn't it say something though that we lost yet another pro choice moderate (your own Arlen Spector) to the democrats?

These Senators/Congressmen who are leaving are telling us something and the party isn't listening.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I would vote GOP if they would moderate their position on abortion.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I was a D, but I disagree with them on the majority of issues so I changed it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Listen to me I think I see the dichotomy here. When I say I want us to return to our principles I am refering to a desire to have us break away from the ideology of Self preservation(See actions under Tom Delay etc) and have us once again believe in a party of limited Gov't and reform. I have no problems with moderates. If you read the state by state Favorites thread's you would now that. I have no problems with moderates like Mark Hatfield, or John Chafee. Why? Cause they actually have a set core of beliefs and stick to there principles and they are original in there Liberalism or moderation. While I can't stand people like Arlen Specter, or Lincoln Chafee is because they don't care about ideology or have a set core of personal views. The Beliefs mirror those of whats Politcally correct, makes the media adore them, or helps them win reelection. It definately says something when John Chafee survived 23 years representing Highly Democratic RI through Good years like 1994 and 1988, and bad years like 1976 and 1982, while his son lasted barely 7 losing in his first tough year. Mark Hatfield Survided 30 years in Oregon. It says that these states prefer moderates who have a spine and and values not ones that are PC whimps.

which until the late 90s, used to favor republicans.  To those that believe the party's movement to the right hasn't killed us, look no further than the northeast or midwest where suburban votes make the difference.

I think this is aimed at me after what I said about Michigan. Yes we moved too far right for these areas, I agree. What I was saying about Michigan is that when the Republicans were very liberal in the state they couldn't break through the Dem stranglehold. Once they became Conservative the Dems began to lose. Now that conservatism is hurting us in the state in Oakland county and alike.

I do not agree with you go spastic every time we talk about us winning a Blue state, going OMG, OMG we can't win here and its all your fault. That childish behavior won't get you anywhere.

The moderate voters always swing elections and we used to own these votes.  How do we get them back fellow republicans?  Or, is the party just too far right at this point? That's why I've argued that in these bluish states, we need to bite the bullet and start nominating the Mark Kirk's, Lincoln Chafees, Olympia Snowes, etc in these states, people that are pro choice, believe in gay rights to some extent and connect with moderate voters.

For your infortmation its not as if we have been nominating the most rabidly conservatives in every race. Last time I checked the party fought like hell to protect Lincoln Chafee's unprincipled a**, Arlen Specter beat Toomey in 2004, In 2009 we nominated Chris Christie and Bob McDonnel for the Governorships in NJ and V, You may not consider them moderates exactly but Christie isn't Lonegan and McDonnel isn't Bill Bolling. The party recruited Rob Simmons, Charlie Crist, and is trying to get Kirk, and Castle to run for the Senate as well.

[sg0508]

Well, Crist is likely going to save our asses in FL and that's probably why he's running for the seat.  Martinez would have been toast. 

Chafee did have principles though and it was just too far to the left for the party (aka the Laffee challenge) and then 06 was just a bad year.  But, while we knock people like him out who at least keep us represented in blue states, idiots like DeMint who give the party a bad name and what some think is the definition of the problem is going for an easy re-election.

Mike Castle is one of my favorites, but isn't he old already? The guy has been in DE politics for like 30+ years already.  That being said, he consistently wins 2 yrs in the House by large margins, was a good governor and is still well-respected.

I'm very pleased that Simmons is running in CT. I liked him a lot and his stances are in line with me and how I think our party can flourish again in the northeast, slowly but surely. That being said, I don't think he will win (and I don't care that he's polling ahead now), but it's a start.   And by the way, it pisses me off that Joe Courteney has done next to nothing in CT.

What I would like is to hold the NH seat, which is very important and possibly steal back one of the house seats up there.  Victories in those seats would indictate that we carried suburban votes by large margins in democratic districts.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, Crist is likely going to save our asses in FL and that's probably why he's running for the seat.  Martinez would have been toast. 

Chafee did have principles though and it was just too far to the left for the party (aka the Laffee challenge) and then 06 was just a bad year.  But, while we knock people like him out who at least keep us represented in blue states, idiots like DeMint who give the party a bad name and what some think is the definition of the problem is going for an easy re-election.

Mike Castle is one of my favorites, but isn't he old already? The guy has been in DE politics for like 30+ years already.  That being said, he consistently wins 2 yrs in the House by large margins, was a good governor and is still well-respected.

I'm very pleased that Simmons is running in CT. I liked him a lot and his stances are in line with me and how I think our party can flourish again in the northeast, slowly but surely. That being said, I don't think he will win (and I don't care that he's polling ahead now), but it's a start.   And by the way, it pisses me off that Joe Courteney has done next to nothing in CT.

What I would like is to hold the NH seat, which is very important and possibly steal back one of the house seats up there.  Victories in those seats would indictate that we carried suburban votes by large margins in democratic districts.

I addressed this about DeMint in another thread. He is a princinpled guy who represents his state well. He and Coburn are both better then the alternatives which are corrupt pork barrelers who are just as if not more socially conservative.

As for the LAffey challenged, the primary challenge had nothing to do with chafee losing. Chafee had a 62% approval rating on election day. If the primary hurt him he would be in the 40's or something. He lost cause he was in a Blue state in a bad year first and for most. John Chafee had principles, Lincoln did not. The reason I feel this way is that it seemed that every position Lincoln took they always seem to benefit his reelection, whereas John would sometimes go against his electoral interests for what was right, he was a good man and its a shame he is no longer with us . One issue where Lincoln Chafee seemed to break with self interest was on Social Security. But I can't find him doing that on any other thing.

[TeePee4Prez]

which until the late 90s, used to favor republicans.  To those that believe the party's movement to the right hasn't killed us, look no further than the northeast or midwest where suburban votes make the difference.

-In my home state (and I'm a moderate republican), we used to DESTROY democrats in suburbia (Long Island and upstate NY).  We would only lose because the boroughs are overwhelmingly democratic.

-PA used to be our state.  Suburban voters around Philly and Pitt used to put us over the top and we could actually get 30% of the Philly vote.  Now, we're lucky to garnish 20% and in that state, those suburban votes moved the state blue.

-IL used to be our state but the surrounding suburbs of Cooke County (Schaumburg), etc have moved left and we've lost those votes.  IL voted for the GOP in every election from 68-88 because of our moderate voters.

-MI for the exact same reason,

-CT/DE/NJ- These were red states guys.  We used to wipe the floor in suburbia here and not anymore.  Some say that Buchanan's Culture Wars speech ended our reign here and it might be true considering we haven't won in any of these states since, although Jodi Rell is an excellent moderate.

-OR/WA used to be our states for the same reason.
-CA for the same reason although major changes in demographics were a big contributing factor for losing the state.

-CO is quickly turning to crap, as is VA because we haven't kept up with demographical changes and the political movement associated with them.

The moderate voters always swing elections and we used to own these votes.  How do we get them back fellow republicans?  Or, is the party just too far right at this point? That's why I've argued that in these bluish states, we need to bite the bullet and start nominating the Mark Kirk's, Lincoln Chafees, Olympia Snowes, etc in these states, people that are pro choice, believe in gay rights to some extent and connect with moderate voters.

What is the profile of these voters?  White, middle to upper middle class, white collar, well-educated, socially moderate and fiscally moderate/conservative.  Those used to be our voters.  We need to find a way to get them back.

Interestingly, your party might actually have a shot at me in the future.  But as of now, it ain't happening.  I have been throughly disgusted at overwhelmingly Democratic and overtaxed Philadelphia and the way it has been run for many years.  I'm also becoming a little bit leery of Obama's spending.  However, the national Republican party is floating crap like the flat or national sales tax, wants workers' rights back to the 19th century, wants a say in people's bedrooms, and has idiots like Rush Limbaugh as it's mouthpiece.  If I could, I would be an Independent, but unfortunately PA doesn't allow them to vote in primaries. 

[Smash255]

Listen to me I think I see the dichotomy here. When I say I want us to return to our principles I am refering to a desire to have us break away from the ideology of Self preservation(See actions under Tom Delay etc) and have us once again believe in a party of limited Gov't and reform. I have no problems with moderates. If you read the state by state Favorites thread's you would now that. I have no problems with moderates like Mark Hatfield, or John Chafee. Why? Cause they actually have a set core of beliefs and stick to there principles and they are original in there Liberalism or moderation. While I can't stand people like Arlen Specter, or Lincoln Chafee is because they don't care about ideology or have a set core of personal views. The Beliefs mirror those of whats Politcally correct, makes the media adore them, or helps them win reelection. It definately says something when John Chafee survived 23 years representing Highly Democratic RI through Good years like 1994 and 1988, and bad years like 1976 and 1982, while his son lasted barely 7 losing in his first tough year. Mark Hatfield Survided 30 years in Oregon. It says that these states prefer moderates who have a spine and and values not ones that are PC whimps.

which until the late 90s, used to favor republicans.  To those that believe the party's movement to the right hasn't killed us, look no further than the northeast or midwest where suburban votes make the difference.

I think this is aimed at me after what I said about Michigan. Yes we moved too far right for these areas, I agree. What I was saying about Michigan is that when the Republicans were very liberal in the state they couldn't break through the Dem stranglehold. Once they became Conservative the Dems began to lose. Now that conservatism is hurting us in the state in Oakland county and alike.

I do not agree with you go spastic every time we talk about us winning a Blue state, going OMG, OMG we can't win here and its all your fault. That childish behavior won't get you anywhere.

The moderate voters always swing elections and we used to own these votes.  How do we get them back fellow republicans?  Or, is the party just too far right at this point? That's why I've argued that in these bluish states, we need to bite the bullet and start nominating the Mark Kirk's, Lincoln Chafees, Olympia Snowes, etc in these states, people that are pro choice, believe in gay rights to some extent and connect with moderate voters.

For your infortmation its not as if we have been nominating the most rabidly conservatives in every race. Last time I checked the party fought like hell to protect Lincoln Chafee's unprincipled a**, Arlen Specter beat Toomey in 2004, In 2009 we nominated Chris Christie and Bob McDonnel for the Governorships in NJ and V, You may not consider them moderates exactly but Christie isn't Lonegan and McDonnel isn't Bill Bolling. The party recruited Rob Simmons, Charlie Crist, and is trying to get Kirk, and Castle to run for the Senate as well.

How exactly is Lincoln Chafee unprincipled??   He took a highly principled stand against the Iraq War, and to come out in favor of Gay Marriage (was one of the first Senators to do so.  The reason John Chafee was able to survive for so long and Lincoln wasn't was no fault of Lincoln, but simply the GOP.  2006 was an AWFUL year for the GOP, the only year the GOP lost more seats during his father's tenure was 86 (when his father wasn't up for re-election).  In fact the worse loss the GOP had when his father was up for re-election was a loss of one seat in 88.  Bush was absolutely HATED in Rhode Island, and the Republican Party as a whole was MUCH further to the right when Lincoln was running than when his father was there.  Hell Chafee's approvals on election day was 63-36, Whitehouse took 34% of the vote of those who approved of Chafee.  Also the battle for Senate control was on the lines.  Lincoln lost for one reason only, the R next to his name.  Granted those R's were never that well liked in Rhode Island when his father was there either, but nothing like how much hey were despised and hated in 06.

[??????????]

Shadow- doesn't it say something though that we lost yet another pro choice moderate (your own Arlen Spector) to the democrats?

These Senators/Congressmen who are leaving are telling us something and the party isn't listening.

Specter is a political whore, that's why he left.

[??????????]

Well, Crist is likely going to save our asses in FL and that's probably why he's running for the seat.  Martinez would have been toast. 

Crist is the worst of the worst. A panderer with little principle other then reacting to polls.

[DariusNJ]

NEWS FLASH: Moderates and suburbanites are the key for any party to win an election.