How can the GOP find a viable "middle" again & appease the growing Tea Party?

[sg0508]

Any reasonable answers, or is it basically impossible? If the latter, then the Republican party is on its way to slowing dying over the coming decades.

[DC Al Fine]

Short to medium term, no. Long term yes. Eventually the Democrats coalition will get so big that cleavages will emerge that the Republicans can exploit.

Right now I think the Republicans should run a Conservative Party of Canada style "values" campaign. Appeal to minorities and the Tea Party on values, but not the abortion/SSM kind. The Canadian Conservatives found succes by running on values like thrift, hard work, putting family 1st etc. This dovetails nicely with fiscal conservatism while not scaring moderates and minorities.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm not sure they can, but if they educate people about what they really believe, then they should be fine.  But after this past election, I'm not so sure that the Tea Party movement won't start to decline.

[TNF]

The Tea Party  isn't growing. That's an absurd notion, because the Tea Party never existed as a separate entity. It's just the far-right of the Republican Party that's existed since the New Deal.

The Republicans, should they want to win the middle, need to reject the Tea Party on social and economic issues and move to about where Clinton's Democratic Party was in the 1990s. The Tea Party will vote for them anyway, it's not like they'll start voting Obama anytime soon.

[opebo]

Short to medium term, no. Long term yes. Eventually the Democrats coalition will get so big that cleavages will emerge that the Republicans can exploit.

Right now I think the Republicans should run a Conservative Party of Canada style "values" campaign. Appeal to minorities and the Tea Party on values, but not the abortion/SSM kind. The Canadian Conservatives found succes by running on values like thrift, hard work, putting family 1st etc. This dovetails nicely with fiscal conservatism while not scaring moderates and minorities.

Very good post. 

I agree they can kind of just pretend the social issues/anti-woman/racist thing doesn't exist.  However, a lot depends on whether the fiscal conservatism aspect continues to be perceived as clearly against the interests of a large (enough) minority of whites.  Because it will be hard to prevent the House flaunting that aspect in our faces over the next several years.

[DC Al Fine]

The Tea Party  isn't growing. That's an absurd notion, because the Tea Party never existed as a separate entity. It's just the far-right of the Republican Party that's existed since the New Deal.

The Republicans, should they want to win the middle, need to reject the Tea Party on social and economic issues and move to about where Clinton's Democratic Party was in the 1990s. The Tea Party will vote for them anyway, it's not like they'll start voting Obama anytime soon.

If the Republicans go to Clintonian positions, someone like Santorum would almost certainly run 3rd party and screw them out of the presidency.

[MrMittens]

The Tea Party  isn't growing. That's an absurd notion, because the Tea Party never existed as a separate entity. It's just the far-right of the Republican Party that's existed since the New Deal.

The Republicans, should they want to win the middle, need to reject the Tea Party on social and economic issues and move to about where Clinton's Democratic Party was in the 1990s. The Tea Party will vote for them anyway, it's not like they'll start voting Obama anytime soon.

If the Republicans go to Clintonian positions, someone like Santorum would almost certainly run 3rd party and screw them out of the presidency.

Not Santorum, it would be Bachmann, Palin or West (or even Cain).

[hopper]

The Tea Party  isn't growing. That's an absurd notion, because the Tea Party never existed as a separate entity. It's just the far-right of the Republican Party that's existed since the New Deal.

The Republicans, should they want to win the middle, need to reject the Tea Party on social and economic issues and move to about where Clinton's Democratic Party was in the 1990s. The Tea Party will vote for them anyway, it's not like they'll start voting Obama anytime soon.

If the Republicans go to Clintonian positions, someone like Santorum would almost certainly run 3rd party and screw them out of the presidency.

Not Santorum, it would be Bachmann, Palin or West (or even Cain).

They wouldn't go 3rd party. Even the party big wigs like Krauthammer, Kristol and Hannity can see the writing on the wall if the Republicans don't change.

[hopper]

Short to medium term, no. Long term yes. Eventually the Democrats coalition will get so big that cleavages will emerge that the Republicans can exploit.

Right now I think the Republicans should run a Conservative Party of Canada style "values" campaign. Appeal to minorities and the Tea Party on values, but not the abortion/SSM kind. The Canadian Conservatives found succes by running on values like thrift, hard work, putting family 1st etc. This dovetails nicely with fiscal conservatism while not scaring moderates and minorities.

Very good post. 

I agree they can kind of just pretend the social issues/anti-woman/racist thing doesn't exist.  However, a lot depends on whether the fiscal conservatism aspect continues to be perceived as clearly against the interests of a large (enough) minority of whites.  Because it will be hard to prevent the House flaunting that aspect in our faces over the next several years.

Yeah they went hard-right on social issues in the 112th Congress and it did do damage to their brand. The race thing I don't see it as a issue. I know white liberals, blacks, and some hispanics think differently than me on race and thats their right.

[DC Al Fine]

The Tea Party  isn't growing. That's an absurd notion, because the Tea Party never existed as a separate entity. It's just the far-right of the Republican Party that's existed since the New Deal.

The Republicans, should they want to win the middle, need to reject the Tea Party on social and economic issues and move to about where Clinton's Democratic Party was in the 1990s. The Tea Party will vote for them anyway, it's not like they'll start voting Obama anytime soon.

If the Republicans go to Clintonian positions, someone like Santorum would almost certainly run 3rd party and screw them out of the presidency.

Not Santorum, it would be Bachmann, Palin or West (or even Cain).

They wouldn't go 3rd party. Even the party big wigs like Krauthammer, Kristol and Hannity can see the writing on the wall if the Republicans don't change.

Hannity =/= the social conservative wing of the GOP.

Seriously though, if the GOP ran a candidate who accepted abortion, was pro-SSM, pro amnesty etc, wht would a socon vote for them? There would be nothing to differentiate the GOP from the Dems. It'd be very easy for a Huckabee or Santorum to run and win a couple southern states that would usually be safe GOP.

[hopper]

The Tea Party  isn't growing. That's an absurd notion, because the Tea Party never existed as a separate entity. It's just the far-right of the Republican Party that's existed since the New Deal.

The Republicans, should they want to win the middle, need to reject the Tea Party on social and economic issues and move to about where Clinton's Democratic Party was in the 1990s. The Tea Party will vote for them anyway, it's not like they'll start voting Obama anytime soon.

If the Republicans go to Clintonian positions, someone like Santorum would almost certainly run 3rd party and screw them out of the presidency.

Not Santorum, it would be Bachmann, Palin or West (or even Cain).

They wouldn't go 3rd party. Even the party big wigs like Krauthammer, Kristol and Hannity can see the writing on the wall if the Republicans don't change.

Hannity =/= the social conservative wing of the GOP.

Seriously though, if the GOP ran a candidate who accepted abortion, was pro-SSM, pro amnesty etc, wht would a socon vote for them? There would be nothing to differentiate the GOP from the Dems. It'd be very easy for a Huckabee or Santorum to run and win a couple southern states that would usually be safe GOP.

In my opinion you can run on a candidate who is pro-life and pro-civil unions. A pathway to citizenship would be acceptable(pay a fine, payback taxes you may owe and learn english.)
I know it would be hard for the GOP base to accept a pathway to citizenship because the southern base is so conservative.

Huckabe has a good job at FOX and probably will never leave the station. Santorum would know he wouldn't win as a 3rd party candidate. I could see Palin doing the 3rd party thing but she likes being a political celebrity.

[DC Al Fine]

The Tea Party  isn't growing. That's an absurd notion, because the Tea Party never existed as a separate entity. It's just the far-right of the Republican Party that's existed since the New Deal.

The Republicans, should they want to win the middle, need to reject the Tea Party on social and economic issues and move to about where Clinton's Democratic Party was in the 1990s. The Tea Party will vote for them anyway, it's not like they'll start voting Obama anytime soon.

If the Republicans go to Clintonian positions, someone like Santorum would almost certainly run 3rd party and screw them out of the presidency.

Not Santorum, it would be Bachmann, Palin or West (or even Cain).

They wouldn't go 3rd party. Even the party big wigs like Krauthammer, Kristol and Hannity can see the writing on the wall if the Republicans don't change.

Hannity =/= the social conservative wing of the GOP.

Seriously though, if the GOP ran a candidate who accepted abortion, was pro-SSM, pro amnesty etc, wht would a socon vote for them? There would be nothing to differentiate the GOP from the Dems. It'd be very easy for a Huckabee or Santorum to run and win a couple southern states that would usually be safe GOP.

In my opinion you can run on a candidate who is pro-life and pro-civil unions. A pathway to citizenship would be acceptable(pay a fine, payback taxes you may owe and learn english.)
I know it would be hard for the GOP base to accept a pathway to citizenship because the southern base is so conservative.

Huckabe has a good job at FOX and probably will never leave the station. Santorum would know he wouldn't win as a 3rd party candidate. I could see Palin doing the 3rd party thing but she likes being a political celebrity.

Sure, but you talked about embracing 1990's Clinton politics. I don't think Clinton is pro-life is he? If the GOP runs a pro-life, pro-SSM candidate, I can see a 3rd party candidacy emerging, but it probably won''t happen.

On the other hand, if there is no pro-life candidate, it doesn't really matter whether Santorum/Palin/Huckabee decide not to run. Someone fairly prominent would find their way onto the ballot and take votes and possibly states from the GOP.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Clinton's abortion position was "safe, legal and rare"

Counting those who include the rape exception (people like Romney) and those who don't (Hucky, Akin, Perry), you are talking a vast majority of the Republican party that is pro-life. Abandoning life isn't in the cards for the GOP. That is the road to ruin. What needs to happen is a change of tactics and new strategy. Instead of this "one upmanship" like Mourdock tried to do and instead of making it easy for people to vote against a candidate because they are pro-life, the movement has to find a way to make it something they sell to majority of Americans who even if they don't necessarily agree 100%, are comfortable voting for the candidate because of other issues and that issue doesn't "preclude them their vote" shall we say. Then after winning, stack the courts and overturn Roe.

I think they key on the Gay Marriage issue is to abroach it the same way as Abortion (Overturn Roe, send it back to the states). Remove the federal involvement (which means drop the FMA) and appoint judges who will preserve the right of states to determine that issue themselves. That way you might be able to have a pro-civil unions nominee, provided he pledges to preserve Alabama's right to determine its own policies, and not have a bolt.

Immigration reform is not going to get you back to 40% of the Hispanic vote. It may get you to the door and get it slighly cracked, but it won't get you inside. Regardless of whether or not the Republican candidate is pro-amnesty, "integrated minority outreach" has to be a part of every campaign. That means you craft an agenda of economic freedom, prosperity and empowerment that you can articulate and aggressively push for amongst all minority communities. That is what will get a candidate to the mid 40's and beyond amongst Latinos and Asians. It is important that you establish that whatever your immigration position is, it isn't because of hatred of thme but a desire to have the best policy and it is essential that you aggressively push back against what the Democratis will respond with. Bush had an aggressive attempt to get black voters in 2000 and the Democrats responded with an ad about the guy who got dragged to death as if Bush approved of that. They won't roll over and let you steal their "ascendent majority" away from them. Regardless of how much outreach and efforts you make they will try every election to turn the Republicans into Hitler.

[Blue3]

The Tea Party  isn't growing. That's an absurd notion, because the Tea Party never existed as a separate entity. It's just the far-right of the Republican Party that's existed since the New Deal.

The Republicans, should they want to win the middle, need to reject the Tea Party on social and economic issues and move to about where Clinton's Democratic Party was in the 1990s. The Tea Party will vote for them anyway, it's not like they'll start voting Obama anytime soon.

Exactly what I was going to say.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Tea Party  isn't growing. That's an absurd notion, because the Tea Party never existed as a separate entity. It's just the far-right of the Republican Party that's existed since the New Deal.

The Republicans, should they want to win the middle, need to reject the Tea Party on social and economic issues and move to about where Clinton's Democratic Party was in the 1990s. The Tea Party will vote for them anyway, it's not like they'll start voting Obama anytime soon.

The problem the GOP has is not so much in the issues it has in its platform, but the people it gets to run on them.  With the exception of its opposition to same-sex marriage, there isn't anything in there that is is inherently antagonistic to minorities.  However the xenophobes and cryptoracists that the party tolerates taints its appeal to minorities, and I see no easy way to get rid of them.

[Person Man]

I mean, I think if the GOP was true to "States' Rights", it would probably do better. Things like DOMA and federal restrictions on abortion, even if they are popular measures that target outrageous procedures, betray the notion that the party is accessible to everyone. States' Rights gives the GOP a chance to say, "we're not against the other guys, we're for everyone". This would also include better state latitude in how they deal with those who violate Federal Immigration or Drug laws.

And on Economic issues, they should be more Moderate Libertarian than the type of Fiscal Conservatism they currently advocate. Their goal should be to get the Government off the people's back, but not to replace the Government with the Super Wealthy.

Basically, the Republican Party's path back to power is to rid itself of its version of the Leviathan of subsidized Big Business and Federally mandated Social Conservatism and to maintain the socon and libertarian vote by contrasting themselves against what could be perceived as the uniformly large and secular Government espoused by Democratic policies.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I mean, I think if the GOP was true to "States' Rights", it would probably do better. Things like DOMA and federal restrictions on abortion, even if they are popular measures that target outrageous procedures, betray the notion that the party is accessible to everyone. States' Rights gives the GOP a chance to say, "we're not against the other guys, we're for everyone". This would also include better state latitude in how they deal with those who violate Federal Immigration or Drug laws.

How is DOMA anti-States' Rights?  It doesn't keep States from having a definition of marriage that includes same-sex marriage.  What it does is prevent having one State's definition of marriage from overriding the definitions other States might choose, or that which the Federal government chooses to use for itself.  Not only that, but what you seem to be advocating is making the Federal government subservient to the States in many areas that it currently is not, which logically would entail a devolution of many Federal programs to the States which would then have to deal with funding them or whether to even keep them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So are you advocating for example that rather than one nationwide Social Security/Medicare system that we go to having fifty-one systems, with perhaps some States choosing to shut them down entirely via privatization, while others choose to enhance the system with added benefits at the cost of added taxes?  It's an interesting idea if you are, but I'm doubtful of its prospects for electoral success, or its efficacy if actually put in place.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The Tea Party  isn't growing. That's an absurd notion, because the Tea Party never existed as a separate entity. It's just the far-right of the Republican Party that's existed since the New Deal.

The Republicans, should they want to win the middle, need to reject the Tea Party on social and economic issues and move to about where Clinton's Democratic Party was in the 1990s. The Tea Party will vote for them anyway, it's not like they'll start voting Obama anytime soon.

If the Republicans go to Clintonian positions, someone like Santorum would almost certainly run 3rd party and screw them out of the presidency.

Not Santorum, it would be Bachmann, Palin or West (or even Cain).

They wouldn't go 3rd party. Even the party big wigs like Krauthammer, Kristol and Hannity can see the writing on the wall if the Republicans don't change.

Hannity =/= the social conservative wing of the GOP.

Seriously though, if the GOP ran a candidate who accepted abortion, was pro-SSM, pro amnesty etc, wht would a socon vote for them? There would be nothing to differentiate the GOP from the Dems. It'd be very easy for a Huckabee or Santorum to run and win a couple southern states that would usually be safe GOP.

In my opinion you can run on a candidate who is pro-life and pro-civil unions. A pathway to citizenship would be acceptable(pay a fine, payback taxes you may owe and learn english.)
I know it would be hard for the GOP base to accept a pathway to citizenship because the southern base is so conservative.

Huckabe has a good job at FOX and probably will never leave the station. Santorum would know he wouldn't win as a 3rd party candidate. I could see Palin doing the 3rd party thing but she likes being a political celebrity.

What? Why would they need to learn english (other than for own benefit of course and only if they want to).

[hopper]

The Tea Party  isn't growing. That's an absurd notion, because the Tea Party never existed as a separate entity. It's just the far-right of the Republican Party that's existed since the New Deal.

The Republicans, should they want to win the middle, need to reject the Tea Party on social and economic issues and move to about where Clinton's Democratic Party was in the 1990s. The Tea Party will vote for them anyway, it's not like they'll start voting Obama anytime soon.

If the Republicans go to Clintonian positions, someone like Santorum would almost certainly run 3rd party and screw them out of the presidency.

Not Santorum, it would be Bachmann, Palin or West (or even Cain).

They wouldn't go 3rd party. Even the party big wigs like Krauthammer, Kristol and Hannity can see the writing on the wall if the Republicans don't change.

Hannity =/= the social conservative wing of the GOP.

Seriously though, if the GOP ran a candidate who accepted abortion, was pro-SSM, pro amnesty etc, wht would a socon vote for them? There would be nothing to differentiate the GOP from the Dems. It'd be very easy for a Huckabee or Santorum to run and win a couple southern states that would usually be safe GOP.

In my opinion you can run on a candidate who is pro-life and pro-civil unions. A pathway to citizenship would be acceptable(pay a fine, payback taxes you may owe and learn english.)
I know it would be hard for the GOP base to accept a pathway to citizenship because the southern base is so conservative.

Huckabe has a good job at FOX and probably will never leave the station. Santorum would know he wouldn't win as a 3rd party candidate. I could see Palin doing the 3rd party thing but she likes being a political celebrity.

What? Why would they need to learn english (other than for own benefit of course and only if they want to).

Well I would to know another countries language if they spoke another language in that particular country. Yeah for their own benefit: for people in the US that may not speak spanish for example. I know in San Antonio and Los Angeles there is no need for a spanish speaking person to learn english.

[Person Man]

I mean, I think if the GOP was true to "States' Rights", it would probably do better. Things like DOMA and federal restrictions on abortion, even if they are popular measures that target outrageous procedures, betray the notion that the party is accessible to everyone. States' Rights gives the GOP a chance to say, "we're not against the other guys, we're for everyone". This would also include better state latitude in how they deal with those who violate Federal Immigration or Drug laws.

How is DOMA anti-States' Rights?  It doesn't keep States from having a definition of marriage that includes same-sex marriage.  What it does is prevent having one State's definition of marriage from overriding the definitions other States might choose, or that which the Federal government chooses to use for itself.  Not only that, but what you seem to be advocating is making the Federal government subservient to the States in many areas that it currently is not, which logically would entail a devolution of many Federal programs to the States which would then have to deal with funding them or whether to even keep them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So are you advocating for example that rather than one nationwide Social Security/Medicare system that we go to having fifty-one systems, with perhaps some States choosing to shut them down entirely via privatization, while others choose to enhance the system with added benefits at the cost of added taxes?  It's an interesting idea if you are, but I'm doubtful of its prospects for electoral success, or its efficacy if actually put in place.

Let's just say this- As much as the current Democratic party favors establishing a national NHS. So, in a way, take steps towards these goals while respecting the status quo. A fundamentally conservative idea that right now the Democrats have Republicans beat on.

Some ideas could be to allow the Ryan budget (the only problems with this would be seniors, but they could care less at this point), but without talking about federal constitutional bans on gay marriage, mass deportations or federal bans on abortion.  The talking point is "its none of the Feds's business". Perhaps they do need to push to the center or trade and trusts, though. In fact, create tariffs to get revenue in order to create a flat tax. 

[auburntiger]

The Republicans need to nominate someone who can connect with the average voter. And that would be someone with a middle-class upbringing, not necessarily a minority (but it could help), and someone who comes across as genuine and caring. This candidate should probably be a governor with a fiscally conservative record, and a reputation of being able to work with a Dem legislature.

As far as issues go, to bridge the gap, the stance on gay marraige will probably have to be along the lines of "Though I am personally not for it, but I recognize that some states want it, therefore I respect the sanctity of the vote and personal freedoms, and will not overturn any current laws that allow benefits for same-sex couples." The candidate should be in favor of civil unions. This would be a middle ground stance IMHO.

For abortion, the Republicans will never nominate a openly pro-choice candidate. The stance should be something like this: "I believe abortion is a horrible thing, where one life is terminated and one life is scarred forever. Ultimately the issue of abortion is about a potential life being snuffed out, and because I believe that life begins at conception, two wrongs can never make a right." The rape question will come up, and he/she should probably answer it this way: "I believe that rape victims are exactly that...victims, and I would never issue legislation where victims of rape were discriminated against." On planned parenthood (IT'S NOT GOING AWAY!!), the stance should be this: "Planned Parenthood helps alot of low-income families and women, and I recognize the good in the services it provides, but I disagree with its stance on abortion. It will be a tough line to sell to both camps who are diametrically opposed, but this may be a way to appease and make it as placid as possible.

Economy: like mentioned above, the candidate should be a governor with a stellar record of reform. Stress that welfare reform calls for a pathway up not a lifestyle. Seriously, he/she just need to be open and not to try to hide anything. When they ask for tax returns, show them and don't wait forever to release them.

Healthcare: seek to reform it better, and he/she needs to be smart enough to dodge the traps that would focus the conversation about cutting entitlements. Rather, "if we're gonna have Obamacare, I want it to function better than the current form it's in"

Basically, a conservative with a slight populist stance on the bread and butter issues of the day.

[hopper]

The R's do definitely need a pro-civil union candidate since I think alot of Republican Voters do support civil unions. Its just a signifcant number of their southern base may not.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The Tea Party  isn't growing. That's an absurd notion, because the Tea Party never existed as a separate entity. It's just the far-right of the Republican Party that's existed since the New Deal.

The Republicans, should they want to win the middle, need to reject the Tea Party on social and economic issues and move to about where Clinton's Democratic Party was in the 1990s. The Tea Party will vote for them anyway, it's not like they'll start voting Obama anytime soon.

People still vote for the Democrats because they loved Clinton's Democrats so much in the 90s, especially on cultural issues.  That's why 1992 was such a major realignment.  Moderates, suburban women, etc. went to the Democrats that year and never looked back.  Republicans need to realize that although social issues are important and need to be addressed, they should place less emphasis on social conservatism and more on economic policy, since most voters are more fiscally conservative than socially conservative, and most of them seem to care more about economic ("bread and butter") issues than social issues anyway.  Like with the Tea Party movement, the social/religious conservatives will still vote for the GOP because they've had a lock on that vote for so long now.

[pbrower2a]

The Tea Party is not growing, at least where I live.

I worked the food booth for the Democrats at the county fair in 2010, 2011, and 2012, and in 2010 and 2011 I noticed that the Republican food booth had three flags -- the US Flag (which is proper) on top, the Gadsden (rattlesnake and Tea Party) in the middle, and the Republican party flag on the bottom.  In 2012 the Tea Party flag was not present.

The Tea Party has an increasingly-elderly group of supporters. It is not attracting younger voters. The youngest voters are more concerned with income and personal debt than with government spending. Such is likely to remain so for a long time.