What happens to "true conservatives"?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:54:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  What happens to "true conservatives"?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What happens to "true conservatives"?  (Read 1623 times)
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,659


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 14, 2017, 12:44:39 PM »

What will happen long term to people in the Republican Party who would both oppose a more populist/Trumpist direction (on things like trade, taxes, healthcare, spending, entitlements, etc.) AND who would oppose a more libertarian or Charlie Baker-ian direction of the GOP on social issues?  People who believe in Reaganism instead of Trumpism or "fiscally conservative but socially liberal-ism"?  People who are more conservative than the typical establishment but view the Trumpist wing as worse than the establishment?  These people probably liked most of the Republicans running a lot and maybe even largely voted for Trump in the general election, but are completely unsatisfied with the direction of the party and the debates within it.

Are Reagan conservatives dead?
Logged
Skunk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,456
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -9.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2017, 12:56:39 PM »

If (and that's a pretty big if) the Republican party continues to adopt a more populist and/or socially liberal attitude, most of the "true conservatives" will probably end up in the Constitution party or form their own party. Still probably wouldn't gain much traction, though.
Logged
Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2017, 01:56:28 PM »

No. Parties appear to move ideologically behind whoever is the leader at the time.
Ex. Democrats move left under Obama and with Sanders
Ex. Growth of Anti-Trade under Trump
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2017, 03:04:55 PM »

No. Parties appear to move ideologically behind whoever is the leader at the time.
Ex. Democrats move left under Obama and with Sanders
Ex. Growth of Anti-Trade under Trump

Taft & Bush Sr. beg to differ.
Logged
Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2017, 03:47:33 PM »

No. Parties appear to move ideologically behind whoever is the leader at the time.
Ex. Democrats move left under Obama and with Sanders
Ex. Growth of Anti-Trade under Trump

Taft & Bush Sr. beg to differ.
You note exceptions rather than the rule.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2017, 04:32:12 PM »

"True conservatives" as in right-wingers on policy issues?  I imagine they'll just stay grumpy Republicans until their "side" gets their former power back (if it ever does).
Logged
Karpatsky
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2017, 08:56:19 PM »

The financial crisis killed them. There just aren't that many social conservatives with liberal (in the economic sense) views any more in America. That's the reason why Romney lost handily in 2012, and why so much of the Republican base backed Trump over the more 'traditional' candidates in 2016.
Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2017, 12:02:25 AM »

The financial crisis killed them. There just aren't that many social conservatives with liberal (in the economic sense) views any more in America. That's the reason why Romney lost handily in 2012, and why so much of the Republican base backed Trump over the more 'traditional' candidates in 2016.
This is correct. Capitalism is great, but some regulations are needed and the common man and woman on both sides of the aisle wants a government that puts their interests before those of billionaires and their multinational corporations. The media has shifted the country to the left socially to the extent that gay marriage, just a decade ago a winning issue for the GOP) is a done deal with very few seriously still trying to reverse it. Reagan's coalition didn't really believe in all the "true conservative" principals of Goldwater anyway and neither do the modern ones. Goldwater voted down the Civil Rights Act as an unconstitutional federal overreach. Guaranteed nobody important in the GOP would stand on principle enough to agree with him there (meaning you yourself are liberal by the standards of the past). The conservative movement has played a losing game for the last 30 years and failed to conserve anything. You already lost the culture war and if you don't do something to slow down demographics the whole country will vote like California.

Trumpism is still unrefined, but that gives it the potential to develop in whatever direction it needs to go. Most importantly, it replaced the cowardly defensiveness of conservatism inc. with an attack. With something to vote for, not just "vote against socialism." If "true conservatives" had conserved the America of the 80s, then Trumpism never would have been necessary. What happens is that you hop on the Trump train and try to keep it as far to the right as possible (while accepting that the borderline theocratic social views of the Roy Moores of the world are dead) or else you become irrelevant.
Even Ted Cruz had to adopt populist views to be able to run to Trump's right. Ultimately, the Cruz and Trump voters have enough in common that they should support each other. If you side with the establishment that has lost and/or betrayed its base so many times (amnesty bills, failing to repeal Obamacare, allowing the debt to skyrocket, etc) over Trump, I don't know what to tell you but this: Expect to continue losing

P.S. Pence is the favorite to succeed Trump and should unite the GOP behind him. Just wait. Smiley
Logged
Karpatsky
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2017, 11:37:56 AM »

P.S. Pence is the favorite to succeed Trump and should unite the GOP behind him. Just wait. Smiley

Agree with 80% of what you said, but Pence is the wrong person. His schtick is being really socially conservative; economically speaking he's fairly establishment. To move that direction GOP needs a Keynesian who can go the socially-conservative route without alienating Hispanics or African-Americans as much as Trump has (both relatively socially conservative groups who vote D simply because of endless and unnecessary dog-whistling from the GOP). Can't think of any major figure who fits that bill though.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2017, 12:03:11 PM »

P.S. Pence is the favorite to succeed Trump and should unite the GOP behind him. Just wait. Smiley

Agree with 80% of what you said, but Pence is the wrong person. His schtick is being really socially conservative; economically speaking he's fairly establishment. To move that direction GOP needs a Keynesian who can go the socially-conservative route without alienating Hispanics or African-Americans as much as Trump has (both relatively socially conservative groups who vote D simply because of endless and unnecessary dog-whistling from the GOP). Can't think of any major figure who fits that bill though.

You can't just have a GOP with zero regard for the business community, the well-off, budget hawks and other economically right-of-center folks.  The "Establishment" (to the extent that means anything) certainly made a mistake thinking they only needed people exactly like them to win; the "Trumpists" (again, to the extent that means anything coherent post-Trump) shouldn't make the same mistake.  As NC Yankee has said, the future of a winning GOP involves an economically moderate party that is much more socially tolerant than the current Republican Party, one that neither repulses voters that have supported the party for a long time (like Trump has done to many Republicans) nor makes swathes of Americans feel "too poor" to vote Republican (as Romney somewhat did).  We need a big tent.
Logged
Karpatsky
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2017, 12:19:49 PM »

P.S. Pence is the favorite to succeed Trump and should unite the GOP behind him. Just wait. Smiley

Agree with 80% of what you said, but Pence is the wrong person. His schtick is being really socially conservative; economically speaking he's fairly establishment. To move that direction GOP needs a Keynesian who can go the socially-conservative route without alienating Hispanics or African-Americans as much as Trump has (both relatively socially conservative groups who vote D simply because of endless and unnecessary dog-whistling from the GOP). Can't think of any major figure who fits that bill though.

You can't just have a GOP with zero regard for the business community, the well-off, budget hawks and other economically right-of-center folks.  The "Establishment" (to the extent that means anything) certainly made a mistake thinking they only needed people exactly like them to win; the "Trumpists" (again, to the extent that means anything coherent post-Trump) shouldn't make the same mistake.  As NC Yankee has said, the future of a winning GOP involves an economically moderate party that is much more socially tolerant than the current Republican Party, one that neither repulses voters that have supported the party for a long time (like Trump has done to many Republicans) nor makes swathes of Americans feel "too poor" to vote Republican (as Romney somewhat did).  We need a big tent.

Agree in principle but it's not the way the party is moving. I think the state of the GOP tax plan is proof that there are very few 'economic moderates' left there; the WWC-types are beginning to realize that the R establishment isn't doing anything for them. For what you describe to come about, the GOP would have to eject both its economic-right and social-right extremists in order to rebuild an old coalition, rather than ejecting just the former to build a new one. It's happening anyways, just look at Republican favorability of Ryan and McConnell over the last few years.
Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2017, 01:59:13 PM »

P.S. Pence is the favorite to succeed Trump and should unite the GOP behind him. Just wait. Smiley

Agree with 80% of what you said, but Pence is the wrong person. His schtick is being really socially conservative; economically speaking he's fairly establishment. To move that direction GOP needs a Keynesian who can go the socially-conservative route without alienating Hispanics or African-Americans as much as Trump has (both relatively socially conservative groups who vote D simply because of endless and unnecessary dog-whistling from the GOP). Can't think of any major figure who fits that bill though.

Blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly support big government, gun control, redistribution of wealth, restricting free speech, etc. The GOP could get some more of them, but certainly nowhere near a majority (maybe 10% of blacks and 35% of Hispanics and Asians max). Contrary to the popular narrative, blacks became democrat long before the GOP became competitive in the south because they liked FDR's New Deal.

"In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion." - Lee Kuan Yew, former Prime Minister of Singapore. The only way I see democrat's domination of minorities changing is if tensions between minority groups drives some away (as the LA riots did with Asians in the 90s).

You may be right about Pence. He is certainly more conservative than Trump, but he has avoiding criticizing Trump where they disagree and would be well positioned to keep Trump's coalition intact so long as things are going well come 2024.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2017, 01:59:45 PM »

P.S. Pence is the favorite to succeed Trump and should unite the GOP behind him. Just wait. Smiley

Agree with 80% of what you said, but Pence is the wrong person. His schtick is being really socially conservative; economically speaking he's fairly establishment. To move that direction GOP needs a Keynesian who can go the socially-conservative route without alienating Hispanics or African-Americans as much as Trump has (both relatively socially conservative groups who vote D simply because of endless and unnecessary dog-whistling from the GOP). Can't think of any major figure who fits that bill though.

You can't just have a GOP with zero regard for the business community, the well-off, budget hawks and other economically right-of-center folks.  The "Establishment" (to the extent that means anything) certainly made a mistake thinking they only needed people exactly like them to win; the "Trumpists" (again, to the extent that means anything coherent post-Trump) shouldn't make the same mistake.  As NC Yankee has said, the future of a winning GOP involves an economically moderate party that is much more socially tolerant than the current Republican Party, one that neither repulses voters that have supported the party for a long time (like Trump has done to many Republicans) nor makes swathes of Americans feel "too poor" to vote Republican (as Romney somewhat did).  We need a big tent.

Agree in principle but it's not the way the party is moving. I think the state of the GOP tax plan is proof that there are very few 'economic moderates' left there; the WWC-types are beginning to realize that the R establishment isn't doing anything for them. For what you describe to come about, the GOP would have to eject both its economic-right and social-right extremists in order to rebuild an old coalition, rather than ejecting just the former to build a new one. It's happening anyways, just look at Republican favorability of Ryan and McConnell over the last few years.

Color me skeptical that the majority of Trump's voters will get on board with "Keynesianism" rather than just a less blatantly classist conservatism in the economic arena.  Most of Trump's voters were Romney's voters, after all.
Logged
PoliticalShelter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 407
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2017, 02:09:46 PM »

P.S. Pence is the favorite to succeed Trump and should unite the GOP behind him. Just wait. Smiley

Agree with 80% of what you said, but Pence is the wrong person. His schtick is being really socially conservative; economically speaking he's fairly establishment. To move that direction GOP needs a Keynesian who can go the socially-conservative route without alienating Hispanics or African-Americans as much as Trump has (both relatively socially conservative groups who vote D simply because of endless and unnecessary dog-whistling from the GOP). Can't think of any major figure who fits that bill though.

You can't just have a GOP with zero regard for the business community, the well-off, budget hawks and other economically right-of-center folks.  The "Establishment" (to the extent that means anything) certainly made a mistake thinking they only needed people exactly like them to win; the "Trumpists" (again, to the extent that means anything coherent post-Trump) shouldn't make the same mistake.  As NC Yankee has said, the future of a winning GOP involves an economically moderate party that is much more socially tolerant than the current Republican Party, one that neither repulses voters that have supported the party for a long time (like Trump has done to many Republicans) nor makes swathes of Americans feel "too poor" to vote Republican (as Romney somewhat did).  We need a big tent.

Agree in principle but it's not the way the party is moving. I think the state of the GOP tax plan is proof that there are very few 'economic moderates' left there; the WWC-types are beginning to realize that the R establishment isn't doing anything for them. For what you describe to come about, the GOP would have to eject both its economic-right and social-right extremists in order to rebuild an old coalition, rather than ejecting just the former to build a new one. It's happening anyways, just look at Republican favorability of Ryan and McConnell over the last few years.

Color me skeptical that the majority of Trump's voters will get on board with "Keynesianism".
Considering how republicans were quite willing to support Reagan and Bush 43 I don't think they'll have too much of a problem supporting Keynesianism.
Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2017, 02:11:17 PM »

Agree in principle but it's not the way the party is moving. I think the state of the GOP tax plan is proof that there are very few 'economic moderates' left there; the WWC-types are beginning to realize that the R establishment isn't doing anything for them. For what you describe to come about, the GOP would have to eject both its economic-right and social-right extremists in order to rebuild an old coalition, rather than ejecting just the former to build a new one. It's happening anyways, just look at Republican favorability of Ryan and McConnell over the last few years.
The Republican establishment is long overdue for defeat. It has very little popular support and mainly retains influence do to money, incumbency, and its dominance of most print and TV conservative media. I don't think the GOP has to reject the right side at all. They just need to tone certain things down. I think capitalism without globalism is still fairly popular. They can even keep their social issue stances if they just stopped making it a litmus test that you must be a Christian or Jew who thinks life starts at conception to even hope for a shot in their primaries.
Logged
Holy Unifying Centrist
DTC
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,200


Political Matrix
E: 9.53, S: 10.54

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2017, 02:13:45 PM »

All I know is the Trump coalition is going to need to expand, otherwise it is going to have a lot of trouble winning in the future. Non college graduate white people is a pretty bad coalition for the House / President (not as bad for the Senate). Hillary would have only won the popular vote by 1.3% in 2012 if the demographics voted the same way they did in 2016. Literally every state is becoming better for the democrats demographically besides South Carolina (and Washington DC). Idaho and New Hampshire are barely changing, though.

Even the rust belt states are becoming more demographically friendly towards Democrats, and especially the sun belt is rapidly becoming more demographically friendly.

Also you can easily get 12-15% of african americans by just not being assholes to them. Most republicans in 2016 got around that amount of AA's, just Trump underperformed them.
Logged
P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong
razze
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,070
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -4.96


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2017, 02:51:06 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

For America's sake, let's hope so
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,348


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2017, 05:16:52 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

For America's sake, let's hope so not
Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 19, 2017, 03:30:14 PM »

All I know is the Trump coalition is going to need to expand, otherwise it is going to have a lot of trouble winning in the future. Non college graduate white people is a pretty bad coalition for the House / President (not as bad for the Senate). Hillary would have only won the popular vote by 1.3% in 2012 if the demographics voted the same way they did in 2016. Literally every state is becoming better for the democrats demographically besides South Carolina (and Washington DC). Idaho and New Hampshire are barely changing, though.

Even the rust belt states are becoming more demographically friendly towards Democrats, and especially the sun belt is rapidly becoming more demographically friendly.

Also you can easily get 12-15% of african americans by just not being assholes to them. Most republicans in 2016 got around that amount of AA's, just Trump underperformed them.
The Trump coalition still included the majority of white college graduates, and their objections to Trump were more related to his personality than his policies, meaning that a Trump republican without scandals like Access Hollywood could outperform him.

Trump also did better with black voters than McCain and Romney. Admittedly, he wasn't against Obama, but his results were perfectly normal for a republican. Black don't vote democrat "because republicans are assholes to them." They vote democrat because they overwhelmingly support democrat big government policies. The black vote didn't flip due to Nixon's southern strategy. It flipped decades earlier due to FDR's New Deal programs. Most blacks support welfare, want more gun control, do not consider hate speech free speech, want to raise taxes on the rich,etc. The main area where the black community and democrats are divided is on social issues that weren't the focus of the 2016 election.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.239 seconds with 12 queries.