Time for a GOP Northern Strategy

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The problem is that the evangelicals, Tea Partiers, and other far-right types not only  control and dominate the party, but have almost completely purged it of the influence of others. As others have said, these are the most reliable Republican voters there are-and many Republican leaders are evangelical/far-right/Tea Party types.

Anyway, there is plenty of room in the Democratic Party for people who are "mainstream" conservatives but don't want to be associated with the Republican brand (if they aren't Independents, of course...) In places like much of Southern CA, the SF Bay Area and New England and the Northeast in general, the Republican Party, as a rule, does not win elections (though more moderate/mainstream individual Republican candidates may win). Why would anyone from those areas run for office as a Republican, when they can more easily win elections and influence matters as a Democrat?

That is a sad fact of American politics today.  While I believe the GOP should stand for conservative values, we don't need to purge the party of moderates to do that.

[Beezer]

I don't think we need to moderate on social issues, but we need to de-emphasize social issues in our campaigns in blue-leaning areas.  However, I do think that message may be of benefit when trying to win Latino votes.

Latinos are in favor of gay marriage and some polls also indicate abortion (see http://s3.amazonaws.com/resurgentrepublic.com/resurgentrepublic/production/assets/873/original/RR-toplines-121212.pdf, page 10). If the GOP wishes to make some inroads into Hispanic voters, they'd be well advised to try and appeal to Hispanic small business owners. And you don't win over those voters by going on and on about abortion and gays. That's how you may also win back pro-choice fiscal conservatives in the NE who've left the party because of its focus on divisive social issues.

[soniquemd21921]

Republicans, at least in the Northeast and possibly the upper Midwest, seemed to have held moderate (or even liberal) views on women's rights in the pre-Moral Majority era. Yankees in Massachusetts voted overwhelmingly in favor of birth control in both the 1942 and 1948 referendums, but it lost both times due to heavy Catholic turnout. And the GOP platform was calling for the Equal Rights Amendment as early as 1940, while New York passed one of the country's earliest abortion laws in the 1960's at a time when the NY legislature was dominated by upstate Republicans.

If abortion had been an issue in the 40's and 50's, would have the party supported it (due to their support for birth control and the ERA)? Something tells me it may very well have, considering the party's core base were Congregationalists, Episcopalians and other "liberal" mainline denominations.

I'm not sure how Republicans in Midwestern states would have supported that issue, though. But the Midwestern GOP was the domain of Landon, Taft, Halleck, Ford and Dirksen, not
Brownback, Akin, Bachmann, Mourdock or even Ryan (the "new" Midwestern GOP leaders).

[Donerail]

If abortion had been an issue in the 40's and 50's, would have the party supported it (due to their support for birth control and the ERA)? Something tells me it may very well have, considering the party's core base were liberal mainline denominations.

This piece by Newt Gingrich's faith coalition co-chair on particular liberal mainline denominations (specifically the Episcopalians and Presbyterians) is rather interesting. Symbolic of how times have changed.

[soniquemd21921]

If abortion had been an issue in the 40's and 50's, would have the party supported it (due to their support for birth control and the ERA)? Something tells me it may very well have, considering the party's core base were liberal mainline denominations.

This piece by Newt Gingrich's faith coalition co-chair on particular liberal mainline denominations (specifically the Episcopalians and Presbyterians) is rather interesting. Symbolic of how times have changed.

And as I mentioned elsewhere, the most liberal mainline denomination (UCC) was the most Republican of any mainline denomination before the 70's. Eisenhower got 82 percent of the Congregationalist vote in 1952, making them as Republican then as Mormons are today.

I have no idea what percentage of Congregationalists still vote Republican, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was around 40 percent.

[Thomas D]

Question Re the chart in Reply 3:

What is 'Other Orientations'? Of which Romney got 32%

[Franknburger]

So, basically the GOP would need to:

1) Drop the anti-discretionary spending mumbo-jumbo for real, sensible entitlement reform.
2) Adopt the economic policy that it was known for in the 1950s:  support for technology, science, and infrastructure by supporting research initiatives, especially at universities.  This should help a lot with the Asian vote as well as in places like the Research Triangle and Silicon Valley. 
3) De-emphasize social conservatism in their campaigns, without necessarily becoming more liberal or even libertarian.  They need to keep their social conservatism in order to not lose any more appeal to Hispanic voters.         
4) Steal some plays from the British Conservatives' playbook and become the "law and order" party to a larger extent then they are now.  This plays well in the suburbs, which is where elections will be won for at least the next 40 years.
5) Find better spokespeople.  This goes without saying.   

That probably would not be enough:
ad 3): "Social conservatism" needs to be de-linked from faith, in order to make inroads with non-Christians (especially Asians), and also to avoid the next wave of faith-based party allegiance shifts (e.g. Republicans in the 1970s / 80s winning over catholic American Germans, while at the same time alienating Congretionalists and Lutherans).

6) Modernise immigration policies and stance (a mere down-toning will probably not be sufficient) to stop Hispanics further abandoning the Republican party. In addition, Republicans may have to change there foreign policy on Latin America (less War on Drugs, more trade cooperation, etc.).

7) Steal some plays from the German CDU's "family values" playbook, including (i) recognising that 21st century families have become more diverse (patchwork, but also LGTM), (ii) introduce meaningful reforms to better align motherhood with professional careers (e.g. government-funded early childhood care, paid out-time for a father taking care of the baby while the mother continues working), (iii) recognise poverty alleviation of single mothers as a legitimate, if not even indispensable field of governent intervention / entitlement, (iv) build up support mechanisms / systems for children taking care of their old age / disabled parents  Such a policy might help to make inroads again into the younger, female, urban/ suburban part of the electorate.

Also, follow the CDU's playbook on re-brandng enviromental policies as conservative (in the original meaning of the term), i.e. recognising climate change as an issue fur immediate and energetic policy action, promote private-sector, small-scale investment in energy conservation and renewable energy, work on new mobility concepts, etc. Should help with currently Dem-leaning groups like university post-graduates, tourism etnerprises / areas (Berkshires, Colorado Rockies, etc.), and may even bring in Iowa as special bonus (IIRC, the state with the highest share of employment in the renewable energy sector).

Such policies would of course put the GOP at quite a risk in the South, and even more so in parts of Appalachia. However, if you are lucky you may end up like Merkel's CDU, with a lot of traditionalist party supporters mumbling in discontent, but siill voting for the 'lesser evil', while the traditional Left is watching in surprise and disbelief how their 'safe supporters' gradually switch sides.

[DC Al Fine]

Question Re the chart in Reply 3:

What is 'Other Orientations'? Of which Romney got 32%

I'd guess trans people, but I really don't know.

[Person Man]

This is basically what Democrats were thinking in 2005/2006. They needed to "Change to Win" or basically make every election about taxes on millionaires, Iraq, abortion and Bush. Of course, the next stage in the series of unfornuate events that we have grown accustomed to since 9/11 changed that thinking.   

It's easier said than done to start winning again. Obviously people don't believe Republicans and they have simply "lost the debate"  but they simply can't stop being Republicans.

[Beezer]

Also, follow the CDU's playbook on re-brandng enviromental policies as conservative (in the original meaning of the term), i.e. recognising climate change as an issue fur immediate and energetic policy action, promote private-sector, small-scale investment in energy conservation and renewable energy, work on new mobility concepts, etc. Should help with currently Dem-leaning groups like university post-graduates, tourism etnerprises / areas (Berkshires, Colorado Rockies, etc.), and may even bring in Iowa as special bonus (IIRC, the state with the highest share of employment in the renewable energy sector).

That's something that I've never understood about the GOP. If you think God created this planet, shouldn't it be our duty to do our utmost to protect and preserve it for future generations? Moderate Republicans should try to link environmentalism to religion, that might work.

[DC Al Fine]

Also, follow the CDU's playbook on re-brandng enviromental policies as conservative (in the original meaning of the term), i.e. recognising climate change as an issue fur immediate and energetic policy action, promote private-sector, small-scale investment in energy conservation and renewable energy, work on new mobility concepts, etc. Should help with currently Dem-leaning groups like university post-graduates, tourism etnerprises / areas (Berkshires, Colorado Rockies, etc.), and may even bring in Iowa as special bonus (IIRC, the state with the highest share of employment in the renewable energy sector).

That's something that I've never understood about the GOP. If you think God created this planet, shouldn't it be our duty to do our utmost to protect and preserve it for future generations? Moderate Republicans should try to link environmentalism to religion, that might work.

It's that awkward grafting together of big business types and the religious right. Some inconsistencies are bound to crop up and this is one of them.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I don't think we need to moderate on social issues, but we need to de-emphasize social issues in our campaigns in blue-leaning areas.  However, I do think that message may be of benefit when trying to win Latino votes.

Latinos are in favor of gay marriage and some polls also indicate abortion (see http://s3.amazonaws.com/resurgentrepublic.com/resurgentrepublic/production/assets/873/original/RR-toplines-121212.pdf, page 10). If the GOP wishes to make some inroads into Hispanic voters, they'd be well advised to try and appeal to Hispanic small business owners. And you don't win over those voters by going on and on about abortion and gays. That's how you may also win back pro-choice fiscal conservatives in the NE who've left the party because of its focus on divisive social issues.

Most of the Latinos that I have mutual contact with are very much pro-life and probably pro-traditional marriage as well.

[Sol]

Most of the Latinos that I have mutual contact with are very much pro-life and probably pro-traditional marriage as well.

Latinos you know =/= All Latinos

[Blackacre]

I don't think we need to moderate on social issues, but we need to de-emphasize social issues in our campaigns in blue-leaning areas.  However, I do think that message may be of benefit when trying to win Latino votes.

Latinos are in favor of gay marriage and some polls also indicate abortion (see http://s3.amazonaws.com/resurgentrepublic.com/resurgentrepublic/production/assets/873/original/RR-toplines-121212.pdf, page 10). If the GOP wishes to make some inroads into Hispanic voters, they'd be well advised to try and appeal to Hispanic small business owners. And you don't win over those voters by going on and on about abortion and gays. That's how you may also win back pro-choice fiscal conservatives in the NE who've left the party because of its focus on divisive social issues.

Most of the Latinos that I have mutual contact with are very much pro-life and probably anti-gay marriage as well.

fix'd.

[bedstuy]

Sure, it would probably be a net benefit for Republicans to moderate their positions.  But, how is that going to happen?  Republicans that take moderate positions are going to lose primaries to Tea-Party types/conservatives.

I think the foreseeable future is that Republicans will continue to focus on appealing only to evangelicals/fundamentalist Christians/Mormons and ideological conservatives and will write off minorities and intellectuals.  That will be a winning formula in some of the country.  The Presidential election strategy will continue to be something like winning the Bush 04 states.    

In the Northeast, the white voters are too educated and too secular for the modern Republican party.  It just seems like a lost cause.  Instead, I think Republicans will try to nominate some type of minority for President or VP, continue the voter-ID/voter suppression push, sabotage everything Obama does the next four years to discredit the government and just generally hope for a bad economy and malaise.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't think we need to moderate on social issues, but we need to de-emphasize social issues in our campaigns in blue-leaning areas.  However, I do think that message may be of benefit when trying to win Latino votes.

Latinos are in favor of gay marriage and some polls also indicate abortion (see http://s3.amazonaws.com/resurgentrepublic.com/resurgentrepublic/production/assets/873/original/RR-toplines-121212.pdf, page 10). If the GOP wishes to make some inroads into Hispanic voters, they'd be well advised to try and appeal to Hispanic small business owners. And you don't win over those voters by going on and on about abortion and gays. That's how you may also win back pro-choice fiscal conservatives in the NE who've left the party because of its focus on divisive social issues.

Most of the Latinos that I have mutual contact with are very much pro-life and probably pro-traditional marriage as well.

I'm sure they are pro-traditional marriage. A plurality are pro-same-sex marriage as well.

[hopper]

The Republicans should put medical marijuana and civil unions into their party platform. That would them in the Northeast and on the West Coast too!

[hopper]

This is basically what Democrats were thinking in 2005/2006. They needed to "Change to Win" or basically make every election about taxes on millionaires, Iraq, abortion and Bush. Of course, the next stage in the series of unfornuate events that we have grown accustomed to since 9/11 changed that thinking.   

It's easier said than done to start winning again. Obviously people don't believe Republicans and they have simply "lost the debate"  but they simply can't stop being Republicans.

Obama ran hard on taxing millionares in his re-election bid. He only ran on the abortion issue because Romney took the extreme position that abortion was a states rights issue.

[hopper]

The Upper Midwest is the North as well. I mainly meant places like upstate New York, suburban Pennsylvania, Maine and especially Vermont.

No Vermont is like an extension of Canada nowadays politically. Its way too liberal for the GOP in national races nowadays(US Seante and US House.) I wonder why New Hampshire politically isn't an extension of Canada since its right near it just like Vermont is.

[hopper]

Sure, it would probably be a net benefit for Republicans to moderate their positions.  But, how is that going to happen?  Republicans that take moderate positions are going to lose primaries to Tea-Party types/conservatives.

I think the foreseeable future is that Republicans will continue to focus on appealing only to evangelicals/fundamentalist Christians/Mormons and ideological conservatives and will write off minorities and intellectuals.  That will be a winning formula in some of the country.  The Presidential election strategy will continue to be something like winning the Bush 04 states.    

In the Northeast, the white voters are too educated and too secular for the modern Republican party.  It just seems like a lost cause.  Instead, I think Republicans will try to nominate some type of minority for President or VP, continue the voter-ID/voter suppression push, sabotage everything Obama does the next four years to discredit the government and just generally hope for a bad economy and malaise.

Their rhetoric on government did change a few weeks after the election. I watched on C-Span Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan at a "Jack Kemp Benefit Event" say government can be a part of the solution but not on everything or something to the effect.

I'll just add so what if Republicans moderate/modify themselves on social issues? Like the Gulf Southern  States are gonna vote Dem in a presidential election? I doubt it.

[Sol]

The Upper Midwest is the North as well. I mainly meant places like upstate New York, suburban Pennsylvania, Maine and especially Vermont.

No Vermont is like an extension of Canada nowadays politically. Its way too liberal for the GOP in national races nowadays(US Seante and US House.) I wonder why New Hampshire politically isn't an extension of Canada since its right near it just like Vermont is.

New Hampshire has Boston exurbs/Tax refugees, who prefer Republicans.

[soniquemd21921]

The Upper Midwest is the North as well. I mainly meant places like upstate New York, suburban Pennsylvania, Maine and especially Vermont.

No Vermont is like an extension of Canada nowadays politically. Its way too liberal for the GOP in national races nowadays(US Seante and US House.) I wonder why New Hampshire politically isn't an extension of Canada since its right near it just like Vermont is.

Vermont was hands down the most Republican state in the nation from the founding of the party in 1854 until the early 60's - one of only two states FDR never won (the other being Maine), and it remained strongly Republican until the 80's. For some reason, this fact tends to get either downplayed and/or ignored altogether today, as it seems that some people cannot think of Vermont as anything but "that crazy state that has Bernie Sanders as its senator".

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The Upper Midwest is the North as well. I mainly meant places like upstate New York, suburban Pennsylvania, Maine and especially Vermont.

No Vermont is like an extension of Canada nowadays politically. Its way too liberal for the GOP in national races nowadays(US Seante and US House.) I wonder why New Hampshire politically isn't an extension of Canada since its right near it just like Vermont is.

Vermont was hands down the most Republican state in the nation from the founding of the party in 1854 until the early 60's - one of only two states FDR never won (the other being Maine), and it remained strongly Republican until the 80's. For some reason, this fact tends to get either downplayed and/or ignored altogether today, as it seems that some people cannot think of Vermont as anything but "that crazy state that has Bernie Sanders as its senator".

I knew that!

[soniquemd21921]

The Upper Midwest is the North as well. I mainly meant places like upstate New York, suburban Pennsylvania, Maine and especially Vermont.

No Vermont is like an extension of Canada nowadays politically. Its way too liberal for the GOP in national races nowadays(US Seante and US House.) I wonder why New Hampshire politically isn't an extension of Canada since its right near it just like Vermont is.

Vermont was hands down the most Republican state in the nation from the founding of the party in 1854 until the early 60's - one of only two states FDR never won (the other being Maine), and it remained strongly Republican until the 80's. For some reason, this fact tends to get either downplayed and/or ignored altogether today, as it seems that some people cannot think of Vermont as anything but "that crazy state that has Bernie Sanders as its senator".

I knew that!

Most political historians are well aware of this fact, but it really does seem to get largely forgotten and overlooked today.

Wouldn't you agree that the transition from "most Republican state" to "most Canadian state" was completed with Bernie Sanders' election in 1990 and Howard Dean becoming governor a year later?

[Smash255]

The Upper Midwest is the North as well. I mainly meant places like upstate New York, suburban Pennsylvania, Maine and especially Vermont.

No Vermont is like an extension of Canada nowadays politically. Its way too liberal for the GOP in national races nowadays(US Seante and US House.) I wonder why New Hampshire politically isn't an extension of Canada since its right near it just like Vermont is.

Boston suburbs/exurbs.  The two largest counties in the state are Hilsborough (which went narrowly for Obama) and Rockingham, which went for Romney by a little over 4.5%.  The rest of the state is quite a bit more liberal and Democratic.  Not exactly Vermont, but similar to Maine.