Would moving away from social conservatism be good or bad for the GOP in Ohio?

[Matty]

I'm pretty sure that state is fairly religious, so I wonder if it could potentially hurt Rs if they begin moderating on SSM, abortion, etc. Santorum almost beat Romney in the state, and it might have been Bush's "moral" issues that gave him the state in 04.

[TJ in Oregon]

Ohio is pro-establishment moreso than socially conservative in the Atlas sense. It would depend on exactly how it moves away. Issues like abortion and gay marriage are the sort of thing where Ohio is pretty close to the national average, but I expect other social issues that will come up soon like drug legalization or surveillance are the type of thing where Ohio's pro-establishment leans will be important.

Also, if the Republicans abandoned the pro-life side of abortion, it would wreck them in way more than just Ohio.

[Indy Texas]

I have family in southeastern Ohio who I'm sure would still vote Republican regardless of whether the party was pro-life or pro-choice. They supported Romney in 2008 and 2012 and also attend a gay-friendly United Methodist congregation. I think Rob Portman fits their views perfectly.

There seems to be a tendency there among a lot of the party to be Republican for the sake of being Republican (kind of a toned down version of Oldiesfreak Republicanism). If you go to some of the smaller towns in Ohio, all the local officials like the sheriff and the county judge will all be Republican, the local GOP will have a float in the town parades and tables at public events and it's almost less a political organization and more like a civic group like the Lions Club or Rotary or something.

[Skill and Chance]

On the one hand, there could be gains in cities and inner suburbs, but there are a lot of pro-life union households in those counties too.  How the rural areas would react is less clear.  I would expect Republicans to lose ground in the east of the state.  Also, how far away would they be moving- a neutral position on gay marriage, or an openly pro-choice candidate?  If we are talking about a compromise on abortion, that could have pretty dramatic consequences.

The greatest benefits from less social conservatism would obviously be in the Mountain West and Northeast.  I would think the greatest risks would be in GA/NC/VA where Republicans absolutely need >70% of the Appalachian vote to win (although some of the $100K income lean Dem voters in those states would have second thoughts too).

[Kevin]

I think moving away from social conservatism(ex. pro-life) would be bad for the GOP not just in Ohio but nationally. As the GOP has made many inroads into parts of the state such as the Appalachian Southeast that used to be quite Democratic. The same goes for similar Rustbelt states as well not Ohio like PA/WV/MI and WI among others.

Also beyond Ohio if the Republicans want to retain what they have and make in-roads back into the minority vote as well they better keep social conservatism. Social Conservatism was one of the major reasons that GWB did so well with the Hispanic vote in 2000 and 2004.

The recent problems that the GOP with this isn't social conservatism in general but the way it exists in it's current form. The way it is perceived to be focused only on older, rural, white Christians making it come across as xenophobic and exclusionary towards anyone who doesn't fit into that category.

GOP strategists should be remolding social conservatism that stands for "traditional values". Which would be more appealing to groups the Republicans need to make inroads among. Ex. a strong focus on the family, respect for law and order, hard work, the importance of getting an education etc. A good example of this form of social conservatism would be the Conservative Party of Canada under Harper .

Thats my two cents at least.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

The Republican Party does not need to move away from social conservatism.

The only social issue they are really badly losing on is gay marriage. Other topics such as crime, guns, death penalty, education, family, abortion, etc. are still competitive or winning issues in many parts of the country, and will remain so as the political pendulum swings back and forth.


Instead, they should tone it down in races where hardcore social conservativism would hurt them, and also stop being so stupid/obsessive over certain issues.

[Never]

In general, the GOP needs to modify its platform on social conservatism, but they don't need to abandon it. The party as a whole should remain pro-life, but it should become ambivalent about same-sex marriage. Legally, I doubt that SSM should even be a national/federal government issue, and Republicans should state that. Let the states pass laws legalizing or banning SSM as they see fit. The Republicans should definitely make sure that they are making various issues like education and law enforcement "traditional values", as Kevin outlined in one of the eariler posts. If this were to come to fruition, instead of appearing to be hard-nosed about a few hot-button social issues, the typical Republican candidate would be viewed as the friendly neighbor who regularly attends church.

Looking specifically at the state of Ohio, it appears that Republicans would benefit from a more focused message on improving the economy. While Ohioans seem to be nominal social conservatives, at the end of the day it would appear that they are going to vote based on who has the better economic policy positions in their eyes. For instance, look at Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), who supports gay marriage, yet is fiscally conservative. That might play well in his state. Ohio seems to have practical voters like the rest of the Midwest. At the end of they day, they probably recognize that most governmental responsibility pertains to money (at what rate is it taxed, how much is spent, what it is spent on, etc.) and if the Republicans translated social conservatism into economic matters, the party might improve its performance in Ohio.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I honestly think the only states it'd backfire in are like West Virginia or Arkansas...  Other socially conservative states are already solidly in the fiscally conservative fold, so we wouldn't lose them (I dare the voters of South Carolina to vote Dem just because social issues aren't totally emphasized).  And in states that are sympathetic to fiscal conservatism but skeptical of social conservatism (maybe New Hampshire or Maine), it would help us make up ground.

[kcguy]

The Republican Party does not need to move away from social conservatism.

The only social issue they are really badly losing on is gay marriage. Other topics such as crime, guns, death penalty, education, family, abortion, etc. are still competitive or winning issues in many parts of the country, and will remain so as the political pendulum swings back and forth.


Instead, they should tone it down in races where hardcore social conservativism would hurt them, and also stop being so stupid/obsessive over certain issues.

The Republican Party needs to come around on gay marriage.  I don't get modern conservatism's seeming belief that gay cohabitation is preferable to gay marriage.  What core quality of conservatism favors cohabitation over marriage?

The Republican Party needs to moderate its tone on abortion.  The current party seems to believe that any woman seeking an abortion should be served with a restraining order keeping her 50 feet from her fetus at all times.  It's obvious to most Americans that some balance needs to be found between maintaining the sanctity of the life of the unborn against keeping a woman's body enslaved to that unborn child.  The Republican Party is justified in coming down on the pro-life side of the scales, but they need to acknowledge that a tradeoff is taking place.

And while we're on the subject of sexuality, the Republican Party really needs to come down on the side of legalized birth control and contraceptives.  It's increasingly unclear where the Pubs stand on this issue.

Finally, I just wanted to say that I work in an office where I have a couple of ditto-heads only a couple of cubicles away from me.  And I heard them talking about the IRS scandal.  I might actually have believed that there might be a real scandal, if these weren't the same people who also talked about Obama faking his birth certificate, or they hadn't spent wasted their breath screaming "Benghazi!" while seemingly forgetting "Beirut!"

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

The Republican Party does not need to move away from social conservatism.

The only social issue they are really badly losing on is gay marriage. Other topics such as crime, guns, death penalty, education, family, abortion, etc. are still competitive or winning issues in many parts of the country, and will remain so as the political pendulum swings back and forth.


Instead, they should tone it down in races where hardcore social conservativism would hurt them, and also stop being so stupid/obsessive over certain issues.

The Republican Party needs to come around on gay marriage.  I don't get modern conservatism's seeming belief that gay cohabitation is preferable to gay marriage.  What core quality of conservatism favors cohabitation over marriage?

The Republican Party needs to moderate its tone on abortion.  The current party seems to believe that any woman seeking an abortion should be served with a restraining order keeping her 50 feet from her fetus at all times.  It's obvious to most Americans that some balance needs to be found between maintaining the sanctity of the life of the unborn against keeping a woman's body enslaved to that unborn child.  The Republican Party is justified in coming down on the pro-life side of the scales, but they need to acknowledge that a tradeoff is taking place.

And while we're on the subject of sexuality, the Republican Party really needs to come down on the side of legalized birth control and contraceptives.  It's increasingly unclear where the Pubs stand on this issue.

Finally, I just wanted to say that I work in an office where I have a couple of ditto-heads only a couple of cubicles away from me.  And I heard them talking about the IRS scandal.  I might actually have believed that there might be a real scandal, if these weren't the same people who also talked about Obama faking his birth certificate, or they hadn't spent wasted their breath screaming "Benghazi!" while seemingly forgetting "Beirut!"

I completely agree with this post.

[Skill and Chance]

I honestly think the only states it'd backfire in are like West Virginia or Arkansas...  Other socially conservative states are already solidly in the fiscally conservative fold, so we wouldn't lose them (I dare the voters of South Carolina to vote Dem just because social issues aren't totally emphasized).  And in states that are sympathetic to fiscal conservatism but skeptical of social conservatism (maybe New Hampshire or Maine), it would help us make up ground.

It's not so much WV/AR/SC which are all conservative enough to give the GOP quite a margin for error.  The concern would be in places where aggressive social conservative turnout just barely keeps the states lean R or toss up today.  Think NC, GA, VA and maybe FL to a degree.  That's too many EV to put on the line when most of the socially libertarian states are too hardcore Dem to flip.  It also makes a huge difference whether we are talking about abortion or gay rights.

With regard to the Appalachian and/or Plains states, the most likely way they revolt would be if the Tea Party manages to cut off farm subsidies.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Probably good over all, but I don't think they should "move away" from social conservatism, just downplay it.  As long as we do the religious conservatives will remain safely in the GOP column, and we can improve our outreach beyond the base.

[Person Man]

The Republican Party does not need to move away from social conservatism.

The only social issue they are really badly losing on is gay marriage. Other topics such as crime, guns, death penalty, education, family, abortion, etc. are still competitive or winning issues in many parts of the country, and will remain so as the political pendulum swings back and forth.


Instead, they should tone it down in races where hardcore social conservativism would hurt them, and also stop being so stupid/obsessive over certain issues.

The Republican Party needs to come around on gay marriage.  I don't get modern conservatism's seeming belief that gay cohabitation is preferable to gay marriage.  What core quality of conservatism favors cohabitation over marriage?

The Republican Party needs to moderate its tone on abortion.  The current party seems to believe that any woman seeking an abortion should be served with a restraining order keeping her 50 feet from her fetus at all times.  It's obvious to most Americans that some balance needs to be found between maintaining the sanctity of the life of the unborn against keeping a woman's body enslaved to that unborn child.  The Republican Party is justified in coming down on the pro-life side of the scales, but they need to acknowledge that a tradeoff is taking place.

And while we're on the subject of sexuality, the Republican Party really needs to come down on the side of legalized birth control and contraceptives.  It's increasingly unclear where the Pubs stand on this issue.

Finally, I just wanted to say that I work in an office where I have a couple of ditto-heads only a couple of cubicles away from me.  And I heard them talking about the IRS scandal.  I might actually have believed that there might be a real scandal, if these weren't the same people who also talked about Obama faking his birth certificate, or they hadn't spent wasted their breath screaming "Benghazi!" while seemingly forgetting "Beirut!"

I completely agree with this post.

This.
I would say push to the center or gays and pot and stop being so creepy and aggressive on abortion and birth control (which probably requires them to at least allow incest/rape exceptions, stop the creepier regulations on legal abortion and stop making it harder to get birth control). They can still be tough for the 2nd Amendment and they can still talk about the death penalty and prison the same. Generic civil liberties and police overreach are already become a dividing point, though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In all the instances where the nomination of a tea party candidate as opposed to an establishement member cost a cost a seat, the establishment or otherwise alternate member (MO was rather complex) was rather conservative on most of the traditional social issues, with the exception of Delaware, yet few doubt that those alternates would have won.

To a large extent there are segments who like to take advantage of such opportunities to take control of the wheel on the issue as was the case with immigration and to some extent with the social issues.

The problem is that the GOP cannot compete as a party that caters solely to NOVA, Socal and Westchester. For one thing those places are different, loaded up with lots of environmentalists, and far left liberals so getting 70% there isn't in the cards and the Democrats are not going back to the good ole days of high marginal tax rates any time soon either, so now reason to expect them to provide an opening in those places. The two party system is like a dance and those places are a natural fit in the modern Democratic party. That means you have to look for rural areas and exurbs to provide your base whilst doing as good as possible in the swing areas to win. The money comes from the big cities and business and thus keeps populist urges on trade and full on anti-immigraton positions in check, whilst the economic needs of lower class voters both base and swing voters, necessitate policies that will advance some degree of mobility, but also a social mix that relects them at least to some extent.

I think with both Portman and Kasich you see at least between the of them combined the right mix to win Ohio, not surpising considering they have both won statewide obviously.

[Matty]

good for them nationally, bad in Ohio.

If Republicans don't play the social conservative, anti-gay card, why would poor rural voters in Ohio vote for them?  Because they want to cut taxes for the rich and close car factories?

On the other hand, if they removed this garbage from their platform it would help them with moderates in places like Virginia and Florida, which are trending away from them.

I hate this condescending sh**t. Maybe these rural voters don't believe in thievery.

[IceSpear]

good for them nationally, bad in Ohio.

If Republicans don't play the social conservative, anti-gay card, why would poor rural voters in Ohio vote for them?  Because they want to cut taxes for the rich and close car factories?

On the other hand, if they removed this garbage from their platform it would help them with moderates in places like Virginia and Florida, which are trending away from them.

I hate this condescending sh**t. Maybe these rural voters don't believe in thievery.

In that case they would despise the Republicans, who steal from the poor and middle class to give to the rich.

[Person Man]

good for them nationally, bad in Ohio.

If Republicans don't play the social conservative, anti-gay card, why would poor rural voters in Ohio vote for them?  Because they want to cut taxes for the rich and close car factories?

On the other hand, if they removed this garbage from their platform it would help them with moderates in places like Virginia and Florida, which are trending away from them.

I hate this condescending sh**t. Maybe these rural voters don't believe in thievery.

Or maybe they are proud to be proud?

[Free Bird]

Moving away from social conservatism anywhere will attract chunks of other demographics, but detract from their biggest asset right now: the white evangelicals. It might give a slight boost, but it will all depend on the candidate.

[Person Man]

Moving away from social conservatism anywhere will attract chunks of other demographics, but detract from their biggest asset right now: the white evangelicals. It might give a slight boost, but it will all depend on the candidate.

The democrats, of course, are in a similar bind. Moving away from social liberalism will detract from their only asset: people who aren't the ones that  stopped voting for them.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Moving away from social conservatism anywhere will attract chunks of other demographics, but detract from their biggest asset right now: the white evangelicals. It might give a slight boost, but it will all depend on the candidate.

This.  I think it would be good overall, but I think they're better off downplaying social conservatism and focusing on fiscal conservatism instead.  That way, they can make inroads with moderates while holding the religious/social conservatives in the base.

[Clermont County GOPer]

bad

[Vosem]

Moving away from being anti-gay marriage would probably help at this point. In 10-20 years, they'll probably have to move away from being anti-marijuana. But I think they can stay pro-life and pro-death penalty for the foreseeable future, and it's the Democratic party that's going to have to be moving away from anti-gun positions soon, not the other way around.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The GOP is locked into its social conservative policies.  Changing them would give a number of GOP voters little reason to show up at the polls.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I would note that gay marriage is a fait accompli, or will be.  I do not support the concept, but we are getting to the point where that won't matter.  Enough states have rectified it to the point where the Courts will REQUIRE states that don't allow same-sex couples to marry will, at a minimum, have to recognize the validity of same-sex married couples that move into their states.  I have never seen such a monumental social change be ushered in so quickly, almost in a stealth manner.  This is almost a non-issue already.

As to abortion:  The only problems that the GOP has had from its pro-life stance are nut jobs like Todd Aiken and nerdy dweebs like Richard Mourdock that can't keep their feet out of their mouths.  (Both of these guys, scary as they came off to some moderate voters, would have been elected if they could have just stated that they were pro-life and that was that, instead of elaborating.)  That, and the folks that want to constantly pass "personhood" bills, mandatory ultrasound bills, mandatory vaginal probe bills, etc.  Not to mention the folks that have gone to war on birth control.  These actions may give a local or state Republican a leg up in fundraising for Southern races, but they are incredibly off-putting to the folks the GOP needs to regain the White House.

[Person Man]

The GOP is locked into its social conservative policies.  Changing them would give a number of GOP voters little reason to show up at the polls.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I would note that gay marriage is a fait accompli, or will be.  I do not support the concept, but we are getting to the point where that won't matter.  Enough states have rectified it to the point where the Courts will REQUIRE states that don't allow same-sex couples to marry will, at a minimum, have to recognize the validity of same-sex married couples that move into their states.  I have never seen such a monumental social change be ushered in so quickly, almost in a stealth manner.  This is almost a non-issue already.

As to abortion:  The only problems that the GOP has had from its pro-life stance are nut jobs like Todd Aiken and nerdy dweebs like Richard Mourdock that can't keep their feet out of their mouths.  (Both of these guys, scary as they came off to some moderate voters, would have been elected if they could have just stated that they were pro-life and that was that, instead of elaborating.)  That, and the folks that want to constantly pass "personhood" bills, mandatory ultrasound bills, mandatory vaginal probe bills, etc.  Not to mention the folks that have gone to war on birth control.  These actions may give a local or state Republican a leg up in fundraising for Southern races, but they are incredibly off-putting to the folks the GOP needs to regain the White House.

Moving away from being anti-gay marriage would probably help at this point. In 10-20 years, they'll probably have to move away from being anti-marijuana. But I think they can stay pro-life and pro-death penalty for the foreseeable future, and it's the Democratic party that's going to have to be moving away from anti-gun positions soon, not the other way around.

This and This. I would like to elaborate by saying that as long as its unconstitutional to make abortion a crime, its just best for Republicans to say they are against abortion. If you are running for state office or the House, its "no taxpayer funding for abortion", if you are running for US Senate, promising to help confirm anti-Roe nominees and filibuster pro-Roe nominees should is enough. Less is more past that point. If Roe were to be overturn, Republicans would then be forced to talk about rape and personhood.

[henster]

SoCons is only thing keeping many of the blue collar union voters in the GOP column. Most are not voting on GOP fiscal policies.