Is this oversimplying the GOP's overall demographical problem?

[sg0508]

I've now heard this from several people and if you can get past the somewhat demeaning term/stereotypes, I think there is some validity to this.

The GOP party and who they cater to for the most part:

1) Christians
2) Rednecks
3) Top 5%

Is that all they have? Have they narrowed themselves that greatly? If so, the party is in deep, deep trouble.  If you notice, one thing that is consistently true, is that when the GOP tends to win, they come in down years where turnout is down (i.e. Midterms), but in presidential years now, when turnout is up, particularly with minorities, forget about it. 2004 was somewhat different in that the Senate pickups where fueled by the location of the seats.

Again, maybe it's pathetic to write this, but the party seems to be thought of as:

1) The Bible Belters living in the past who can't accept change for their lives
2) Uneducated people
3) Big corporations that cut people and then pay bonuses to execs for making the numbers, regardless of how they got there.

Am I wrong?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do you enjoy being this condescending to people who are different from you and your clique?

[sg0508]

Answer the question.  You failed to do so.  Perhaps defensiveness means "yes?".  If you disagree, explain.

[useful idiot]

It's oversimplifying it more than a bit. The problem is racial more than cultural*. First, I'm assuming by Christian you mean evangelical or something. Most Romney voters were not A) Evangelical B) Rednecks (or even Southerners) or C) in the top 5%. Most of Romney's votes were from blue states, even if you take Florida and Virginia out. Obviously most of his voters weren't in the top 5%, and he hardly took all of those voters anyway. Evangelicals make up a large percentage of his voters, but not the majority.

Republicans lose because they can't get a substantial portion of ethnic minorities to vote for them, period. It's not hard to understand that, and it's not hard to see why. To suggest that Republicans get their votes from these fringe groups that don't represent mainstream America, which a lot of Democrats do, is blatantly false. The mainstream culture in this country is still dominated by the white middle-class, a demographic in which Romney absolutely stomped Obama.

The problem for Republicans is that appealing to the average American isn't enough anymore, because the AVERAGE American is no longer representative of the MAJORITY of Americans. The country has become too diverse. Identity politics is where the action is because if you win by massive margins with minority groups and take 35-40% of whites, you win overall.

This certainly doesn't bode well for the GOP going forward, but a party that gets 48% of the vote is hardly some kind of out of touch fringe party.

*Insofar as Hispanics and Asians probably weren't voting Democrat because of an affinity with Obama culturally

[nhmagic]

I think there is validity to some of it and find it demeaning nevertheless.

The GOP has not catered to Christians or social conservatives since Bush in 2004.  Every election where social conservatives are abandoned post-Reagan, republicans lose.  Even Clinton said he could have been beaten in 92/96 had social issues been part of the campaign.  Seeing the vote totals of Obama/Romney compared to Bush 04 also convinces me a sizeable group of republican voters stayed home and I think they were social conservatives (of all the various Christian denominations).

2) Rednecks - Have you been to New England yet?  Plenty of redneck, white union democrats up here.  I fundamentally disagree that republicans cater to Rednecks.  It just happens that our party's center is in the south and that means the liberals have people to trash because they talk differently and have different beliefs.

3) Now, here is where you might have something going on.  One of the major problems with the republican party is that I do think they cater to the top 5% and the Chamber of Commerce too much and part of it is because they have abandoned the middle-class Christian.  

2004 turnout was much greater than 2012 turnout.  I think what has narrowed us is that we lost touch with social/cultural conservatism.  And as we continue to abandon it, the country does change while democrats press forward with one cultural victory after another.  Look, a lot of democrats (to their folly, and likely the next election will show this) believe that abortion and gay rights form the sum of social conservatism.  It encompasses so much more: parent control of teachers and schools, cultural conservatism/respect for tradition, school prayer, gun rights (I argue its a social issue as much as its own issue), a deep respect for hard work and achievement and the truth that Almighty God is the grantor of our rights.  

When you say bible belters living in the past, I'd like to ask: Did liberals ever change who they were when Reagan won - No.  They fought onward.  These calls for republicans to change have been going on since the 1960s and it always leads to electoral defeat.  

Our route to victory are the three pillars: econ, social and nat security.  Only one pillar was represented and defended well in this election.  The others were not and that's why we lost.

[sg0508]

The point of this is that "perception can be reality" in the minds of others, whether or not it's factual. 

I think Romney's problem was obvious..."the top 5%", Bain Capital executive.  At the start of the primary, especially in a bad economy, we all knew he was going to have quite the challenge in reaching the middle class and connecting because of his past there and the PERCEPTION of who he is.

Had it been Santorum, then the right-wing Christian issue and social conservative point would have brought him to the floor.

See where I'm going? It also begs to ask, if you're a new voter (youth vote) in this country, do you want to associate with any of that?

[nhmagic]

The point of this is that "perception can be reality" in the minds of others, whether or not it's factual. 

I think Romney's problem was obvious..."the top 5%", Bain Capital executive.  At the start of the primary, especially in a bad economy, we all knew he was going to have quite the challenge in reaching the middle class and connecting because of his past there and the PERCEPTION of who he is.

Had it been Santorum, then the right-wing Christian issue and social conservative point would have brought him to the floor.

See where I'm going? It also begs to ask, if you're a new voter (youth vote) in this country, do you want to associate with any of that?

I think that the perceptions certainly turned enough democrats out; however, I am convinced that a greater defense of our positions early on would have defeated Obama.  I don't buy Romney's line that he "put his all in the race and everything on the table".

Well associating with two piss-poor candidates isn't something I relish doing.  I am 28 and a youth voter who wanted to see someone articulately and as indicated by this election, more adeptly, explain conservatism to a country begging for freedom and change.  Romney was a liberal and we never trusted him. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

Not all Christians vote Republican. A great many don't.

Not all "rednecks" vote Republican either.

Top 5%? You'd be surprised at the wealth of some Democrats and Independents.

Generalizations  and stereotypes are easy, but that doesn't make them helpful.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Answer the question.  You failed to do so.  Perhaps defensiveness means "yes?".  If you disagree, explain.

We are discussing the issues concerning the GOP in other threads and in them I have answered as to what needs to happen. In fact you even got mentioned in one of my posts. The problem with this thread and everyone on this topic by you is that it is just another opporunity for you to point to a group of people you disdain and say "look at how stupid these stupid people are".

Exclusivity is exclusivity. Whether it is from the right or left matters not and you don't get a pass simply because you are advocating it from the left rather than right. Treating people who are alien to yourself with disdain and hate is the same regardless of whether the right or the left of the GOP is doing it. In fact you are a perfect demonstration of what the GOP is doing wrong, just from the opposite direction from whence they are doing it.

Saying "all stereotypes aside" before proceeding to insult a large number of Americans with them is like sayng "all racism aside" before using the "N" word. It doesn't work and makes it clear you don't want to have a conversation, you want to pontificate on how this large group is stupid and backward, in your classic fashion. I find it to be disturbing, really.

So no, I won't give you a clear answer. Go find it!

[bedstuy]

I think there is validity to some of it and find it demeaning nevertheless.

The GOP has not catered to Christians or social conservatives since Bush in 2004.  Every election where social conservatives are abandoned post-Reagan, republicans lose.  Even Clinton said he could have been beaten in 92/96 had social issues been part of the campaign.  Seeing the vote totals of Obama/Romney compared to Bush 04 also convinces me a sizeable group of republican voters stayed home and I think they were social conservatives (of all the various Christian denominations).

What is catering to social conservatives?  A party platform seeking a total ban on abortion with no exceptions?  Romney calling for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?  They already did that.  What did they get?  Lost two easy senate pick-ups, lost every gay marriage vote, and alienated gay people and women.  I would bet that's only going to get worse.  Non-religious voters are a growing voting block.  The younger generation thinks gay people should be able to live their lives in peace with equal rights under the law.  History is not on your side.

I don't see social conservatism as a path to relevancy for the GOP.  To use social issues, you need to have issues important to people's lives and you need to have a policy solutions.  Republicans  have neither.

Take school prayer.  That's a policy solution, but it's not very important for most people.  Compare school prayer to obesity, drug use & teenage pregnancy, it seems completely petty and frivolous.  How many people died last year because they had to wait until recess to pray?  How much human misery was caused by poor family planning, drug addiction and overeating?  That's what should drive the social agenda of both parties.  Rehashing battles from 30 years ago isn't relevant and nobody cares.    

Conversely, saying "respect for tradition" or "respect for hard work" implies no real policy stand.  Everyone in the country believes in hard work.  Until, you have actual policies, you have nothing.  You have no political agenda until that translate into, "the government should do X or should not do Y.  I don't see any new policies coming from the right.

[SPC]

I think there is validity to some of it and find it demeaning nevertheless.

The GOP has not catered to Christians or social conservatives since Bush in 2004.  Every election where social conservatives are abandoned post-Reagan, republicans lose.  Even Clinton said he could have been beaten in 92/96 had social issues been part of the campaign.  Seeing the vote totals of Obama/Romney compared to Bush 04 also convinces me a sizeable group of republican voters stayed home and I think they were social conservatives (of all the various Christian denominations).

2) Rednecks - Have you been to New England yet?  Plenty of redneck, white union democrats up here.  I fundamentally disagree that republicans cater to Rednecks.  It just happens that our party's center is in the south and that means the liberals have people to trash because they talk differently and have different beliefs.

3) Now, here is where you might have something going on.  One of the major problems with the republican party is that I do think they cater to the top 5% and the Chamber of Commerce too much and part of it is because they have abandoned the middle-class Christian.  

2004 turnout was much greater than 2012 turnout.  I think what has narrowed us is that we lost touch with social/cultural conservatism.  And as we continue to abandon it, the country does change while democrats press forward with one cultural victory after another.  Look, a lot of democrats (to their folly, and likely the next election will show this) believe that abortion and gay rights form the sum of social conservatism.  It encompasses so much more: parent control of teachers and schools, cultural conservatism/respect for tradition, school prayer, gun rights (I argue its a social issue as much as its own issue), a deep respect for hard work and achievement and the truth that Almighty God is the grantor of our rights.  

When you say bible belters living in the past, I'd like to ask: Did liberals ever change who they were when Reagan won - No.  They fought onward.  These calls for republicans to change have been going on since the 1960s and it always leads to electoral defeat.  

Our route to victory are the three pillars: econ, social and nat security.  Only one pillar was represented and defended well in this election.  The others were not and that's why we lost.

If abandonment of social conservatism is the reason why Republicans are losing, then why did Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lose Senate races in reliably Republican states?