Is the GOP still haunted by the 1992 Convention?

[Rockefeller GOP]

This is the truth: I was a registered Republican from 1984 to 1992, and considered myself a "Rockefeller Republican." I aligned myself with the eastern industrialist/internationalist wing of the GOP in the Willkie/Dewey/Stassen/Eisenhower/Rockefeller mold.

I lukewarmly supported Bush Sr. in  the CA primary. I was disgusted by much of the tenor and dialogue in the GOP convention that year. I re-registered as an Independent (aka "Decline to State" in CA) and haven't voted for a Republican for president since.

So I, at least, am still haunted by the 1992 convention.

Amen. I undoubtedly would've been among that group

Same.  But I think just about the worst response/least helpful course of action is to re-register.  You just let the Pat Buchanans win, and it's not exactly like the Democrats are offering that "viewset" a perfect landscape either.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Re: Is the GOP still haunted by the 1992 Convention?

This current Republican Party?!

They are thoroughly corrupt and are whoring themselves for the oligarchs.

That's their present…and their future.

They don't have time to reflect on 1992.

Democrats have been claiming that Republicans are corporate stooges for SEVERAL decades, even if that doesn't jive with your fantasy about the parties "switching places" every so often.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Before the 1992 Republican Convention in Houston the GOP had won 5 of the previous 6 Presidential elections.  At the convention Pat Buchanan made his now famous speech basically declaring Holy war and the rest of the Religious right seemed to do all they could to scare moderate Americans away from the party.

Since then the Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of 6 elections.  These are the states the Dems. have won 6 out of 6, totaling 242 Electoral votes. Just 28 short of 270.

Women, once a swing vote, now vote mostly Democratic. Young people, upset that the GOP hates their gay friends, vote overwhelmingly Democratic. And Religious minorities, and those of no religion, are also very unlikely to vote for the GOP.

Even people who only 'Occasionally' go to Church backed Obama in 2012 55-43.

So is this my secular queer bias? Or is there something here?

Lets see-women once a swing vote, now vote mostly democratic-The GOP loses the women vote because Hispanic and Black Women vote Dem overwhelmingly.

Young People, upset the GOP hates their gay friends  vote Dem-You mean the GOP is for not being for gay marriage and yes young people can't understand why the GOP takes that position.

Minorities regardless of affiliated with or without a religion vote Dem-Minorities have always voted Dem and its been that way for decades except for Asians who used to vote GOP and now have voted Dem in the last 4 Presidential Elections.

The white female vote is still slightly R. Married white women still vote strongly R.

But there are black and Hispanic men, right With that your argument collapses.

The Republicans used to benefit from any tendency of any ethnic group other than blacks or Jews (the latter practically an ethnic group) becoming increasingly R as it gains economically. That is over. Although there are large middle classes among Hispanics, those have had trouble with the pervasive anti-intellectualism of the GOP. Middle-class Hispanics, like middle-class blacks and Asians, are as a rule well educated and attribute much of their success to formal education.  A Party that shows its hostility toward learning might have an appeal to people who resent what they see as 'educated  elites'  even if those elites are 'only' schoolteachers.

In the 1950s, the level of formal education was a good proxy for Republican voting. The Democrats largely had the anti-intellectual demagogues other than Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (who was an embarrassment to well-educated people). Democrats still had the white racist populists of the South. Today the white racist populists are Republicans. 

In 2008, the level of formal education was a good proxy for how one voted in the Presidential election. But that year, the level of formal education correlated positively to voting for Barack Obama.   

       

Your bias is so clear.  Why do you keep using 2008, a Democratic wave year?  2012 happened, ya know, with exit polls.  Democrats won the least educated along with the most educated.  Romney won college graduates and won White post-graduates, too.

[Rockefeller GOP]

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

Romney won college voters but not post grad

Yep. It's the 22-35 year olds that essentially won it for Obama...twice. 

1) Most 22-35 year olds identify "Clinton" as their president growing up, the last truly successful economic president.  Then, they contrasted eight years with GWB.  Yikes.

2) The real young voters didn't really know the Clinton years, but many have gotten poorer under Obama. 

Yeah but in my opinion Obama is nowhere near the President that Clinton was. Obama might even be a tad worse than Bush W. was.

You're dismissed.

LOL, you're such a d^ckhead.

[Rockefeller GOP]

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

Romney won college voters but not post grad

Yep. It's the 22-35 year olds that essentially won it for Obama...twice.  

1) Most 22-35 year olds identify "Clinton" as their president growing up, the last truly successful economic president.  Then, they contrasted eight years with GWB.  Yikes.

2) The real young voters didn't really know the Clinton years, but many have gotten poorer under Obama.  

Yeah but in my opinion Obama is nowhere near the President that Clinton was. Obama might even be a tad worse than Bush W. was.

You're dismissed.

LOL, you're such a d^ckhead.

Oh please. The post he responded to was absurd.

Maybe so, but he regularly responds to everyone as if he's the smartest guy on the planet and everyone else here is moron.