Is the GOP still haunted by the 1992 Convention?

[hopper]

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.

[hopper]

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?

yes, your bias is queer.

1988 unemployment 5.4%. 1992 unemployment 7.7%. That is why the GOP lost in 1992. Not the convention.

And since that time, the unemployment rate has favored the Dems in 1996, 2008, 2012 and probably 2016. Gore the idiot blew it with a 3.8% unemployment rate. he should have won by 5 at least.

The "blue wall" is a myth. In Nov 2016, unemployment could be as low as 4%. We'll see how well Clinton does in 2020 with unemployment still above 6-7% after the 2018 recession.

Well Reagan in a blowout in 1984 with 8% unemployment, and Obama won re-election in 2012 with 7% unemployment. True the unemployment rate favored the Dems in 1996. What was the un-employment rate in 2008? 6% on election day?

[hopper]

No. The patterns aren't much different, but consider this: states like Wyoming, Montana, and Arizona (less religious than average) still vote pretty Republican. States that are moderately religious like Pennsylvania and Minnesota still vote Democratic. Certainly that kind of rhetoric will continue to alienate folks on the west coast and in New England, but it won't be THE reason they deny the Republican Party their electors.

That's mainly because of voters that live in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Portland, and Seattle. Yeah New England you are right except for New Hampshire.

[hopper]

2008 the Republicans had no shot of winning because of the housing crisis and Obama was such a great candidate. 2012 the Republicans could have won but on the question Does(Romney) care about people like me? He lost on that question 81-11% and that basically was the election right there. Romney won on 3 or 4 questions but on the caring question that was basically Obama's margin of victory right there.

[hopper]

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

Other than Ike, youve aligned yourself with LOSERS

Reagan was a moderate conservative

He was a conservative and the most conservative since Goldwater in 64

George W Bush was certainly more conservative

"Compassionate Conservatism" arent words that ever crossed Reagan's lips.

Reagan's 81 tax changes were revolutionary. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were tiny percent rate reductions.

Reagan raised capital gains tax from 15% to 28% while Bush cut them back to 15%. Bush never gave amnesty like Reagan. Bush also deregulated more of the economy then Reagan and  Bush was far far more hawkish then Reagan

I thought it was Clinton that cut the Capital Gains Tax and not Bush W.

Bush never gave amnesty like Reagan-Well Bush W. did attempt an "Immigration Reform Bill" which failed mostly because of the "Conservative Talk Radio" crowd.

Bush W. was more hawkish than Reagan-Yes, I do think Reagan would have gave orders to go into Afghanistan but not Iraq.

[hopper]

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

Other than Ike, youve aligned yourself with LOSERS

Reagan was a moderate conservative

He was a conservative and the most conservative since Goldwater in 64

George W Bush was certainly more conservative

Not by much(he wasn't more conservative.)

Reagan's DW-Nominate Score- +0.703
Bush W.'s DW Nominate Score +0.723

Just for fun-George H.W.'s DW-Nominate Score was +0.580

[hopper]

It's the economy stupid.

Bush lost in 1992 because he was out of touch regarding the economy.

That is true, but many point to that Culture Wars speech as the official time of the Christian Right's hijacking of the GOP and the moment that moderates started voting Democratic, especially in the suburbs, where Republicans have lost serious support since '90.

Moderates didn't overwhelming vote for Reagan/Bush H.W.

1980: Reagan wins Moderates by 6 points-48-42%
1984 Reagan wins Moderates by 8% 54-46%
1988 Bush H.W. wins Moderates by 2 points 51-49%
1992 Clinton wins Moderates by 17%-48-31%

I don't think the suburbs as a whole is the GOP's problem I think its the Northern Suburbs that has been the GOP's problem(The Northeast and the Upper Midwest: IL, MI, and some South Central Wisconsin Suburbs.) The GOP has lost a lot of ground in California as well since 1988. Just look at a Presidential Trend Map 1988-2012 and you will see that. The Washington D.C. suburbs of Virginia have been a problem of late in 2008 and 2012 as well as "The Research Triangle" in North Carolina. I might as well include the Virginia Suburbs as part of the Northeast now because its close to a Northern State(Maryland.)

[hopper]

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.   

       

I do wonder if Obama would have won in 2012 even with Black and Hispanic Men voting. Romney did win the male vote too. Without Latino and Black Women Obama might have lost since Obama did lose with White Women although he did really good with White Women under 30 basically breaking even with Romney.

The GOP doesn't object to learning at all since they are in favor of school choice/vouchers.

The Black, Asian, and Hispanics vote the way do for different reasons.

Blacks-They vote for the Dems at the same rate regardless of income.

Asians-Used to vote GOP until "The Gingrich/Republican Revolution" happened in 1994. Still  Bush W. was getting 40%-45% of the Asian Vote in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections and even John McCain got 35% of the Asian Vote in a terrible GOP year of 2008. Mitt Romney was a terrible candidate for minority voters to vote for in 2012.

Hispanics-Actually their vote is more tied to income than even Black or Asians. The more money they make the more GOP they vote except for a downslope at the 50,000-100,000 dollar mark.

The Republicans white racist populists are Republicans? Racists against who exactly? If you say Mexicans I might agree with some of their rhetoric coming out of their mouths.

[hopper]

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.

[hopper]

I do wonder if Obama would have won in 2012 even with Black and Hispanic Men voting. Romney did win the male vote too. Without Latino and Black Women Obama might have lost since Obama did lose with White Women although he did really good with White Women under 30 basically breaking even with Romney.

Practically all adults can vote for the President (aliens and in most states convicted felons). President Obama won a majority of the popular vote in 2012 and got enough electoral votes. He won fair and square, so nobody has a complaint on that ground.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They had no problem with for-profit educational institutions like Corinthian Colleges which offered overpriced vocational schooling for which students got huge student loans and very poor job prospects. Vouchers exist largely to promote fundamentalist Protestant schools that push educational nonsense like young-earth creationism  and the pseudohistory of David Bartlett (that America was founded on religious principles identical with Christian fundamentalist teachings).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Arkansas blacks voted heavily for the liberal Republican Winthrop Rockefeller in 1966.

ww.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=122

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans used to win heavily among some Asian groups with anticommunist appeals. That is over. China and Vietnam have abandoned Marxism. Koreans would likely be satisfied with North Korea becoming a puppet state of the People's Republic of China.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because of so many Mexican-Americans in Texas who are more conservative on social issues and economics than Mexican-Americans elsewhere, and any group of Hispanics other than Cuban-Americans. Two differences between Mexican-Americans in Texas and Mexican-Americans elsewhere are (1) that Mexican-Americans in Texas are more likely to own homes, and (2) they avoided becoming victims of the subprime lending scandal that financed the Dubya-era housing bubble that hit Hispanics hard. Texas had major reforms of its financial sector after a smaller-scale scam in the 1980s and precluded an analogous scam in the Double-Zero decade in Texas .

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The language emanating from Donald Trump about 'illegal aliens' is particularly ugly.

Most know enough to avoid using the word that rhymes with the name of Roy Rogers horse. Using the racial n-word in public is about as uncouth as using the f-word in public, and either indicates a lack of impulse control more than anything else.    I think we all know how the white population in the Mountain and Deep South vote... blacks basically have the Democratic Party and whites have the Republican Party in some states, and the results are ugly.  

I didn't question Obama's victory in 2012 I was just speculating without the Latina and Black Women Vote wether he would have won the election.

School Vouchers-I think they are good thing if a poor child is in a failing school.

The Black Vote-Yeah but that in 1966 I was talking about 2012.

As far as Asian Voting goes yes "The Chinese" and Koreans do vote Dem true but not "The Vietnamese". On a side talking about "The Chinese Government" their Prime Minister(Ping) is affiliated with "The Communist Party" though. I took a look at the site "Asian Decisions" which is a sister polling firm to the "Latino Decisions" and more Foreign Born Asians voted GOP in 2014 than Native Born Asians did.

The Latino Vote-Well Romney did his best with Florida Latinos where he received 39% of the Latino Vote . Yes some of that  is the  result "Cuban Vote". Texas-Romney received 28% of the Latino Vote there so there wasn't a big GOP Latino Vote Share for Romney. You may be right about Latino's not losing their houses in Texas because of state government reforms made awhile back.

Racial Bloc Voting-Yes I agree the results are ugly.

[hopper]

Saying Obama is worse than W should be a crime punishable through time travel to September of 2008.

I have been working for 17 years and "The Obama Years" have been my worst. No I didn't like Bush W. but I don't like Obama either.

[hopper]

Saying Obama is worse than W should be a crime punishable through time travel to September of 2008.

I have been working for 17 years and "The Obama Years" have been my worst. No I didn't like Bush W. but I don't like Obama either.

You should have been fighting as a soldier in Iraq while George W. Bush was president.

Your acting like I liked Bush W.'s Presidency. I didn't his second term was horrible.

[hopper]

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.

The problem now is that it's going to be very hard for any President to be economically successful. 

1) There is way too much of a gap between the rich and poor
2) The bottom 5% of society became the bottom 30% almost overnight with the Great Recession.
3) The top 1% will not give up anything and threatens middle classers with their jobs every time they won't take it up the a.s.
4) Globalization's negative impact on the U.S. has hit.  The is way too much of a supply of labor vs. the demand for it.  Most people don't have skills that are going to garnish decent lifestyles any longer.  Corporations have gone off-shore. The American worker's days of the "company's best resource" has been replaced by nothing more than "expensive pains in the a.ses".

In 2004, Karl Rove had a big problem.  The economy was still shaky from the dot.com boom ending and we were stuck in Iraq.  He needed a way to get George Bush re-elected.  He led a fiery attack from the right, including getting anti-gay marriage rhetoric involved and on the ballot to draw conservatives to the polls.  John Kerry was also not a very good candidate, but he did VERY well with young voters.  Rove's rhetoric and Kerry's ineptitude was enough to get Bush over the top, but damage with young voters was long done and that carried over.

The "baby" voters, however, were promised a nonsense bill of goods in the '08 campaign by Obama and many are realizing that what he said he would deliver was undeliverable. American culture has put us a disadvantage globally.

The bottom line is, Karl Rove ran a fierce, socially conservative campaign in '04, consistent with the '92 Culture Wars speech. It worked short-time, but given how Bush's second term went, it's really hurt the Republicans with moderate voters and young voters.

Well Globalization I agree with and the off-shoring of jobs. Its not a question of US Workers being in the pain the butt its just cheaper for companies to off-shore jobs.

Going back to the 2004 election sure Kerry did well with young voters but nowhere near as spectacular as Obama did with voters under 30 in both 2008 and 2012.

Yeah true given how Bush W's. second term went it hurt the party with young voters.