Can the GOP win back surbubia?

[freepcrusher]

Under President Obama and the Democrats, the pubbies have made a comeback in many suburban areas of the country that they have lost influence in over the past 20 years. For example in VA, the GOP pretty much lost NOVA from 2001-2009 for a variety of factors demographic change and urbanization not least among them on the local, state, and President level. All of which accumulated in the elections of Jim Webb to the Senate and Obama carrying the state in 2008.

However much of the Republican Party nationwide has adjusted to the circumstances, for instance by running candidates with wide appeal with roots in suburbia like Bob McDonnell in 2009. Additionally, since 2009 many of the suburbia NOVA voters who moved towards the Dems under Bush are going back to the GOP in droves because of the policies put forth by the Democrats and the fact that Obama has turned out to be something that he is showing that he isn't is the feeling at the moment. This in NOVA is leading to a graudal rollback of the Democratic gains over the past 10 years(the local and state elections coming up next week here look like they maybe a disaster for the Democrats), and it is looking increasingly likely that a suburbia heavy state like VA will go back to the GOP in 2012. 

These trends aren't only being seen in NOVA, but other Suburban areas like chunks of Florida, New Hampshire, NJ, or the Philly Suburbs. With the Republicans putting forth  candidates like Chris Christie Scott Brown, and Marco Rubio whose polices appeal to these types of voters.

exactly, i'm freaked out that our coalition has pretty much crumbled

[freepcrusher]

The GOP has to break away from the religious right and social issues, otherwise the party is doomed. Luckily I do see possibilities on the horizon in the form: Chris Christie, Scott Brown, Bob McDonnell and Marco Rubio.

You can't just kick people to the curb over night unless you want to embrace a good 20 to 30 years of Democratic rule. And it must be said, that amongst younger generations, there isn't a big group that will embrace the GOP the minute they stop caring about the unborn. They are also liberal on economic issues as well. At the same time, I actually don't think Democratic policies are in the best interest of the country on a lot of issues and as such the price of such a strategy is too great.

I should point out that certainly Rubio and McDonnell and maybe also Chris Christie (there is some conflicting info here) are pro-life.

The Republicans need a slower approach. Drop some stupid ideas like the FMA, reinvolve state's rights on social issues, be more effective advocates for their issues, and take a more balanced approached on defense (perhaps something like Newt's "Cheap Hawk" idea) as a way to bring Libertarians back into the base. THe main problem with this is they insist on 100% domination of the platform of any party they are involved, which would be just as bad as the Moral Majority's dominating it. Coalitions are about sacrifice. 

THe key is the GOP can't go back to the 1950's where they won in northern New England, NY, PA and got murdered everywhere else (see 1958 Senate map). Rino elitism is not the answer to the GOP's problem. An out of touch centrist is just as much unelectable as a TP extremist.

Exactly how will losing part of a coalition lead to 20-30 years of Democratic rule? I'm curious to know. Plus, my generation (Millenials) will consider the GOP once you stop the worship of Reagan and stop alienating people who don't fit the base.

I think you really just don't want anyone who doesn't think like you in the party from what I see.

Both parties used to have ideological diversity and were able to win in areas, but not anymore.

What is the problem that conservative Republicans have with moderate-liberal Republicans anyways? RINO is a stupid term. It just means "(Insert group slur here)-lover". The GOP wasn't a conservative party in it's origins.

It's self explanatory. If you have a 50-50 election and you suddenly communicate to a large group of say 20% of the total electorate that we don't want or need them anymore. They are crazy, ignorant racists and they just go screw themselves. You are essentially empowering the Democratic party. There is no 20% bloc that will shift to the GOP to replace these people over night. I disagree with you. The problem is the youngest generation, is not only liberal on social issues, but also on economics. Looking at the polling it is obvious. So abandoning one for the sake of the other is a losing proposition. You may get 5%, but not the 20% you need to just to compensate for the loss of the social conservatives.

You mentioned Ronald Reagan. Reagan is an example that should be looked at. He created a coalition of wealthy country clubbers, and blue collar factory workers and was able to dominate the political paradigm for the next 30+ years by doing so. He is one of the most successfull coalition builders right up their with FDR who managed to bring blacks into a party still dominated by white racists, who had segregated the federal gov't under Wilson just a decade and some change earlier. What Republicans need to do now is a reverse Reagan coalition. Bring back the upper middle class and the Libertarians as a segment of the base, while maintaining the social conservatives as a part of that, and also winning those people who hold the balance of power in politics, indies and working class voters.

I think you shouldn't guess people's motivations. I am not the one who wants to throw a group of people out. You are engaging in the typical moderate double speak about coalitions and diversity while in the same breath you are taking a group of people you don't like and throwing them off the bus. In my opinion you guys are just as bad as the far right christian guys but from a different direction and until you guys both grow up and find common cause with one another on the defining issues facing the country right now, their will be no broad coalition.

I don't have a problem with moderates. I supported Mark Kirk in Illinois, Mike Castle in Delaware, the Maine ladies and even Lincoln Chafee in 2006. At the same time, I supported efforts to replace elitists who had grown out of touch like Specter and Crist with Toomey and Rubio. I think nominating Angle, Buck and O'Donnell was a mistake.The first two had sufficiently conservative opponents and I would say Norton was the more Conservative choice in that CO primary but she got on the wrong side of the narrative of the year. I am a conservative, but I am fairly strategic guy and I am fully supportive a coalition based around a set of common objectives. The problem is, I think on some of those, like Education, Pensions, Immigration, and other issues, the Democrats are more interested in satisfying the demands of a political pressure group then doing what is best for the country. If these issues are not addressed, the country won't survive another decade or two as a going concern. So I would oppose any strategy that risks the GOP's tenuous hold on political parity because if it's a Dem trifecta again, the jig is up. Even Democrats admit off the record what needs to happen on education and they just won't do it because of the importance of the teacher unions politically. The late Steve Jobs even said this. There is simply not enough room for a conservative party to exist in the political sphere, without those social conservatives. And we already have a liberal party, so there is no purpose in being a replica of them. And we can't afford to go without a competative right of center force that is willing to combat the unions on pensions and education and isn't afraid to say that secure borders isn't racism, it's sane approach for any responsible gov't.

I find RINO to be a lovable term and I have launch an effort to revive it's reputation. I use it with nothing but affection, I assure you. I have got friends who have been ah shall we say persecuted by far righties who can verify this with you.

The Republican party was also not a liberal party either. It was a mongrel party of diverse ideologies. From communisty/anarchist ex-patriots from Germany and Austria to rich northern capitalists, to working class voters, and of course the abolitionists. They united around the opposition to slavery being expanded into the territories, as well as the latent economic agenda of Hamilton and Clay. The Republicans have had conservative elements in the party since it's founding and at various points they did in fact dominate the party like they did in the 1890's and the 1920's. The democrats likewise had balance of bourbons versus populist/progressives for several decades. This broke down in the 1960's because the Democrats embraced the left. Nixon essentially ran the same kind of campaign and appeal as Ike had in the 1950's (upper and middle class voters, with some working class support, and the peeling off of peripherial southern states). The polarization of the parties based on ideology wasn't started by Republicans. It is however a fact of life in modern politics. 

let me explain to you what the democratic party really is. It may sound shocking but its the truth. The party isn't really a party as much as it is a coalition of people who are in one way or the other misfits. It is what I call the ALT party. The party is made up of people who are in one way or another offended by the "faith, family and football" ethos. Many of us don't want to start a family, or go to church. The minorities also join the table because although they may be somewhat socially conservative, they feel alienated by the FRC or FAFC who feel singled out when they only see white people at those rallies. They feel that they think that christianity is the religion of white people and many blacks remember people like Billy James Hargis who accused the NAACP of being a group run by socialist jews with the intent of mobilizing the blacks against the whites. What separates California from Texas politically is that despite having a large minority population, the non-racial minorities (whites) in Texas feel part of a majority while the ones in CA aren't. The ones in CA are far more likely in Texas to be gay/single, atheist etc and more likely to feel disillusioned with the white christian base of the GOP.