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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.