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

[hopper]

They nominated Trump over Cruz and other candidates with no vision, apart from the stale republican brand, that's a positive.

Well you touched on it their Presidential Candidates in 2016 didn't run on a "vision" so thats why they will lose again in 2016.  As for getting a new base they don't need a new base they need to expand onto their existing base.

[hopper]

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.

Ted Cruz got second, so there's clearly a problem...

Ideologically, I don't find Cruz in second to be much of an issue. Regardless, a fair system would remove the influence of early states and remove the possibility of a nominee being selected through vote splits -- say, by a nationwide instant-runoff election. I am basically certain Trump would not have been the winner of such an event, and nearly certain that it would not have been Cruz either.

He is too right-wing to win a Presidential Election nowadays.

[hopper]

Appeal to new voters? Whether they like it or not, this is their base. Their strategy to push Democrats out of the South and embracing the religious right worked wonders for a spell, and now it's screwing them over bigly. Since then, they have not really reached out to new voters. Instead, they have deepened their support with one demographic while letting the others slip away. Jokes on them though - working class whites have been going batsh**t crazy for years now, especially post-Obama.

They have only themselves to blame for this mess. Maybe next time they will realize that trading long-term success for short-term electoral gains is a stupid strategy.

The Republicans screwed themselves mainly in some Northeastern States like Connecticut and Delaware. They really didn;t screw themselves anywhere else by catering to Southener's political tastes. Vermont, Massachusetts and RI would still be Dem if the Republican didn't cater to Southerner's political tastes. NJ, NY, and MD have been urbanizing with increasing minorty populations for a couple decades now and those area's in recent history have controlled by Dems except for NYC with Guliani in the 90's and Bloomberg in the 00's being the mayors respectively.

[hopper]

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.

Well I agree with you on your first couple of sentences except I think Cruz might have had a better shot at Florida and Colorado than Trump.

I don't get the big deal about the gay marriage thing. I don't think it ranks in the average voter in the electorate top 5 of important issues that they are going to vote on in 2016.

I do agree with you and I think I said this to you last week that I wish the Republicans would get out of the idea about not increasing taxes on anybody because of Bush H.W.'s "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" 1988 Pledge which is a pledge that he broke in 1990. Its just stupid of todays Republican Party to think that way because of some pledge that was broke 25 years ago which is a pledge of a faux-fiscal austerity measure.

[hopper]

Appeal to new voters? Whether they like it or not, this is their base. Their strategy to push Democrats out of the South and embracing the religious right worked wonders for a spell, and now it's screwing them over bigly. Since then, they have not really reached out to new voters. Instead, they have deepened their support with one demographic while letting the others slip away. Jokes on them though - working class whites have been going batsh**t crazy for years now, especially post-Obama.

They have only themselves to blame for this mess. Maybe next time they will realize that trading long-term success for short-term electoral gains is a stupid strategy.

The Republicans screwed themselves mainly in some Northeastern States like Connecticut and Delaware. They really didn;t screw themselves anywhere else by catering to Southener's political tastes. Vermont, Massachusetts and RI would still be Dem if the Republican didn't cater to Southerner's political tastes. NJ, NY, and MD have been urbanizing with increasing minorty populations for a couple decades now and those area's in recent history have controlled by Dems except for NYC with Guliani in the 90's and Bloomberg in the 00's being the mayors respectively.

I mentioned the south and religion separately but in this context I consider them intertwined. Religious influence is crippling the GOP's ability to appeal to Millennials and most likely subsequent generations. How do you appeal to those people when you're forced to take uncompromising social issue positions due to the depth of religious voters in your base? There is probably a way for generic Republicans to do it, but more or less they have not found it nor have shown an overwhelming willingness to do so. The pockets of racism that come from having the south as your main base of support does not help with minorities, either.

I think about the South and Religion we are talking about the GOP not being for SSM right? Is that where you are trying to get at?

I don't think "The South" has anything to do with having minority appeal or lack there of to minority voters. Its about having a vision. Personally, I don't think Hillary or Trump has a vision for the future. Its just that she is less hated than Trump with women and minority groups so thats why she is winning. Thats what it boils down to right now. I wish we had better candidates on both sides of the aisle but thats not who got nominated by the voters.

Oh yeah about NJ I was sort of wrong since Brett Schundler was the mayor of Jersey City as a Republican in the 90's. The Dems probably still controlled the Hudson County Burb's like Union City, West New York, Weehawken, and Guttenberg. The Republicans probably still controlled some of the Southeast Bergen County Burb's back then put not really now.

[hopper]

Actually 56% of GOP Voters per Pew Research are for immigration reform. Its the talk radio types that don't want immigration reform.

[hopper]

Actually 56% of GOP Voters per Pew Research are for immigration reform. Its the talk radio types that don't want immigration reform.

Same thing with gun background checks and the like.

Thats the thing can the Coulter/Hannity/Levin/Ingrahm types enter the 21st Century with the rest of us please? I don't listen to talk radio but on occasion I will turn it on. I don't worship it like some other GOP voters as the gospel. Even John Boehner(former Speaker Of the House) and Trent Lott when he was in the US Senate complained about talk radio.

[hopper]

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

Reagan and both Bushes depended on Southern racism and the Christian Right to win elections.

Well Reagan and Bush HW won their election in blowouts in the 1980's. They could have won their elections without "The South" probably. True about Bush W. being popular with evangelicals and winning Southern States to win elections. He wasn't a racist though he was just a good ole boy from Texas!


On the economic part of it which is seperate the GOP needs to have a program of upward economic mobility for all people including minorities in order to start winning Presidential Elections again. If they just keep running a Mitt Romney 2012 type of candidate they won't win any Presidential Elections. That kind of candidate went out with Reagan/Bush H.W.