The Northern Strategy Explained
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 02, 2021, 09:02:52 PM

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  The Northern Strategy Explained
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: The Northern Strategy Explained  (Read 10387 times)
CELTICEMPIRE
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,826
Georgia



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 05, 2017, 05:52:13 PM »

In this post I will attempt to explain the Northern Strategy that I have talked about for several months now.

The Northern Strategy must be understood in context.  After Romney's defeat in 2012 (which wasn't exactly the height of Obama's popularity) Republicans, from the rank-and-file to the party elites wanted to know exactly where the Romney campaign went wrong so the problem could be fixed.  This sounded easy in theory, but no one could agree on what the problem was or the solutions.  The first explanation to come out was that the GOP was too white.  Republicans needed to appeal to the black community, the Hispanic community, or both.  Many people saw Marco Rubio as the candidate to do this.  The second explanation was that the GOP was too socially conservative.  People arguing this pointed to Todd Aiken's defeat in Missouri along with the polls in 2012 suggesting a majority or plurality in favor of same-sex marriage for the first time in history.  These were the more mainstream theories.

Other less accepted theories were that the Romney campaign wasn't conservative enough and he lost because conservatives stayed home.  After all, Romney was pretty moderate.  Ted Cruz was seen as the answer for people who believed this.  There was also the theory that the GOP needed to be more libertarian.  I argued this point during 2014 on this forum.  The idea was that Romney lost because his foreign policy views were too aggressive and out of touch with Americans and he didn't attack Obama on surveillance/civil liberty issues.  Rand Paul was the obvious choice for the libertarians.

All throughout right-wing political forums and comment sections, Republicans argued over how to take back the White House.  It is worth pointing out that many people argued a combination of these theories.  The libertarians were dealt a serious blow after the rise of ISIS and when the GOP rallied against the Iran Deal.  After this, the battle was between Conservatives and moderates.  But then, in June of 2015, everything changed.

On June 16, 2015, Donald John Trump gave a speech announcing his intention to run for President.  At first, most people laughed.  I didn't take it seriously at the time.  I assumed he would finish 5th in Iowa at best and then drop out.  But he defied expectations and won the nomination, despite being despised by many in his own party.  His path to the White House still seemed narrow.  He had to appeal to people that voted for Obama in 2012 if he wanted to win.  Doubly so considering that many Republicans wouldn't vote for him.  The question was, how would he do it?  Minority outreach obviously wasn't going to work for him.  And he couldn't play the "true conservative" card like Cruz could.

His only option, therefore, was the Northern Strategy.  He would appeal to white Democrats.  He would talk about social issues as little as possible while still keeping religious conservatives (who generally didn't support him in the primaries) on board.  He would then use economic populism and fear of Islamic terrorism in order to win over white voters who typically vote Democrat.  And the strategy worked, in no small part due to Hillary's unpopularity.  What most people don't realize is how much of a departure the Northern Strategy is from how Republicans campaigned in the past.

Immigration.  While the GOP has been the party of immigration restriction since the 19th century, the rhetoric is clearly different.  Take the issue of Islamic immigration.  During the 2000s much of the opposition to Islamic immigration came from "America is a Christian country, Merry Christmas, not Happy Holidays!"  In 2017 the argument against Islamic immigration is that Muslims are a threat to secularism, to women's rights, and to gay rights.  An irreligious man who typically votes Democrat will ignore the former argument but might be worried about the latter.

Transgender bathrooms.  Trump said that transgender people can use whatever bathrooms they want.  I think it's safe to say that the majority of Republicans along with many Democrats and independents, disagree with Trump (see Houston).   Compare this with how Republicans reacted to the legalization of SSM in Massachusetts in 2004.  Republicans made gay marriage a central campaign issue and it probably got Bush reelected.  Furthermore, in 2004 the Republicans used social issues to appeal to minorities and immigrants.  This is a significant change.

The Republican Party of the future will continue to pursue the Northern Strategy.  2016 proved that it could get a candidate as unpopular as Trump elected.  It also proved that there are still a large number of minorities that will vote Republican.  By the mid 2020s the transformation should be mostly complete.  Sure, there will still be libertarians, social conservatives, etc. but they will be increasingly marginalized as populism becomes the official ideology.  America will continue to be less and less religious, and regular religious attendance will become associated with immigrant populations.  Republicans will position themselves as saviors of secularism against immigrants from the third world.  In other words, the American right is becoming like the European right.  Hardcore fiscal conservatism will fall out of favor as well, and the GOP will move to the left on economics.

Thoughts?
Logged
GlobeSoc
The walrus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,973


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2017, 09:23:41 PM »

The alliance of poor industrial workers and rural white working class that propelled the populist right throughout the west is not sustainable, because they turned to the populist right at a time where they're becoming less important, or even because they are. At least in the United States, the 2016 alignment is on a life support of suburbians willing to overlook the right's populism for the fiscal conservatism. Once the fiscal conservatism's gone, they're gone, and the GOP will be shut out of the house and presidency for as long as the Republicans stay right wing populist. Right wing populism won't be able to get them the urban poor vote that they would need to win on that platform.

The right will be libertarian in the future, because the affluent suburbs will be the overwhelming drivers of conservatism, and for whatever reason they like social conservatism less and less. The left will be Sandersesque populism because the urban poor will drive the left. The rural areas will be hyperelastic bellwethers when this occurs, assuming they stay in a state of decline.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,784


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2017, 09:30:56 PM »

I don't understand how the GOP executes the Northern strategy without abandoning their Southern and Interior West base, and the evangelical conservatives. I would assume there would need to be a sea change in American politics for the Northern Strategy to be effective, since it would effectively repudiate the Reagan coalition. E.g, it would shift the GOP coalition to the North, with an intent to be competitive in working class pockets of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, as well as New Jersey.

The big problem is that the Southern evangelicals and the cultural conservatives have an iron grip on the Party's nomination. They were among Trump's best supporters in the primaries. Trump pledged conservative judges, which is anathema to the Northern areas that may support Trump and a more moderate economically minded GOP but are turned off by the social issues.

This Northern strategy assumes the collapse of the GOP's evangelical core, which would assume they became powerless, which is not quite happening without a major event to convince the GOP to shift from the Reagan formula. I don't see that absent a sea change in American politics, on the order of say, the post-World War II political regime shifting to the left drastically in Europe and the Conservatives coping by adopting the strategy you outline.

Your Northern strategy, in other words, IMO, may make sense but it only makes sense in the context of the Democrats realigning the country and the GOP responding by adopting your strategy to stay viable.
Logged
CELTICEMPIRE
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,826
Georgia



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2017, 09:42:19 AM »

I don't understand how the GOP executes the Northern strategy without abandoning their Southern and Interior West base, and the evangelical conservatives. I would assume there would need to be a sea change in American politics for the Northern Strategy to be effective, since it would effectively repudiate the Reagan coalition. E.g, it would shift the GOP coalition to the North, with an intent to be competitive in working class pockets of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, as well as New Jersey.

The big problem is that the Southern evangelicals and the cultural conservatives have an iron grip on the Party's nomination. They were among Trump's best supporters in the primaries. Trump pledged conservative judges, which is anathema to the Northern areas that may support Trump and a more moderate economically minded GOP but are turned off by the social issues.

This Northern strategy assumes the collapse of the GOP's evangelical core, which would assume they became powerless, which is not quite happening without a major event to convince the GOP to shift from the Reagan formula. I don't see that absent a sea change in American politics, on the order of say, the post-World War II political regime shifting to the left drastically in Europe and the Conservatives coping by adopting the strategy you outline.

Your Northern strategy, in other words, IMO, may make sense but it only makes sense in the context of the Democrats realigning the country and the GOP responding by adopting your strategy to stay viable.

I don't think you understand how much Christianity is declining in this country.  And thus the GOP will portray itself as the protector of secularism against religious immigrants.  This is basically what's happening in Europe.
Logged
Young Texan
TexasConservative
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,337


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2017, 09:57:39 AM »

I don't think there is such thing as a so called Northern Strategy. It would be nice to have such a plan, but the GOP doesn't have that. I think what you are referring to is the Trump Strategy. In regards to Nixon's southern strategy, Nixon had the aim of electing Republicans across those states putting the south into the GOP's hands. The Trump strategy is to get him reelected and that is it. He didn't do much to prop up candidates down ballot in 2016 and he probably won't do much come 2018. You are right on the fact of Trump's pivot to working class voters up North. Where I find disagreements is that this is setting up to be the southern strategy of the north; it isn't at all. Trump is like Arnie in California almost. He will build up a coalition for him to get reelected by a large margin and the party will only have one goal: to reelect Trump. I don't think the northern strategy is set up now but it will be down the road.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,676
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2017, 10:25:16 AM »



Over the next 50 years, I really don't see the colored states moving, as long as the GOP spouts some basic form of conservatism (be that pro-business policies, nationalism, religious conservatism, libertarianism ... doesn't matter) and the Democrats spout some basic form of "the left" (be that economic populism, cultural tolerance and multiculturalism, SJW-type stuff ... doesn't matter, either).  Everything else is conceivable to move from being safe depending on the parties' focuses.  Now, I think that some of those moves (see: Alabama or New Jersey) would take a VERY long time, but there's a way I could rationalize it.  The colored in states (or the versions of those states that now exist, at least) have been on the train, so to speak, through whatever their parties threw at them, in one way or another.

These are not the states that I think are most likely to stay ... for example, I can't see a future where Tennessee isn't SOLIDLY Republican, and I doubt VERY, VERY much that New Mexico goes Republican anytime soon, but there is at least a path I can see.  States like North Dakota and Maryland are happy with their locally dominant parties, and they haven't had wild swings.

As for the idea of the OP, I will echo that I don't think there's a cohesive strategy.  I think Trump wanted to get elected, got enough momentum to win the primary and knew that his path to the White House was picking off Rust Belt Obama states, and he (barely) got it done.  The GOP realized it was him or President Hillary, and most fell in line.  I really believe that post-Trump, the GOP's future is up for grabs, 100%.  There is no clear direction after this, and there will be a big-time fight for the party's soul.  Republicans who opposed Trump know that, and they're not about to ditch the party.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,784


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2017, 11:10:27 AM »

I don't think you understand how much Christianity is declining in this country.  And thus the GOP will portray itself as the protector of secularism against religious immigrants.  This is basically what's happening in Europe.

My concern is that the Southern and Midwestern evangelical base makes up what, 50% of the GOP vote? Maybe more? How do you just switch to a more secular Northern pattern without a basic upheaval in politics, since they've been dominant in GOP politics since 1980? I'm not seeing the evangelicals give up power that easily or their agenda items quietly.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,676
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2017, 11:16:09 AM »

Sometimes I wonder if any of you guys have even been to the Midwest ... it's being talked about like it's the Deep South just because it has swung Republican.  There isn't just one type of Republican out there, and Midwestern Republicans are very, very different from Southern ones.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,938


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2017, 01:07:25 PM »

The alliance of poor industrial workers and rural white working class that propelled the populist right throughout the west is not sustainable, because they turned to the populist right at a time where they're becoming less important, or even because they are. At least in the United States, the 2016 alignment is on a life support of suburbians willing to overlook the right's populism for the fiscal conservatism. Once the fiscal conservatism's gone, they're gone, and the GOP will be shut out of the house and presidency for as long as the Republicans stay right wing populist. Right wing populism won't be able to get them the urban poor vote that they would need to win on that platform.

The right will be libertarian in the future, because the affluent suburbs will be the overwhelming drivers of conservatism, and for whatever reason they like social conservatism less and less. The left will be Sandersesque populism because the urban poor will drive the left. The rural areas will be hyperelastic bellwethers when this occurs, assuming they stay in a state of decline.

-Hillary won the cities, not Crazy Bernie. You are describing the 1996 election, or maybe the 1976 one. It's 2016.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,938


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2017, 01:09:24 PM »

The Trump strategy is to get him reelected and that is it. He didn't do much to prop up candidates down ballot in 2016 and he probably won't do much come 2018. You are right on the fact of Trump's pivot to working class voters up North. Where I find disagreements is that this is setting up to be the southern strategy of the north; it isn't at all. Trump is like Arnie in California almost. He will build up a coalition for him to get reelected by a large margin and the party will only have one goal: to reelect Trump. I don't think the northern strategy is set up now but it will be down the road.

-Jason Lewis?
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,502
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2017, 01:17:56 PM »

I don't understand how the GOP executes the Northern strategy without abandoning their Southern and Interior West base, and the evangelical conservatives. I would assume there would need to be a sea change in American politics for the Northern Strategy to be effective, since it would effectively repudiate the Reagan coalition. E.g, it would shift the GOP coalition to the North, with an intent to be competitive in working class pockets of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, as well as New Jersey.

The big problem is that the Southern evangelicals and the cultural conservatives have an iron grip on the Party's nomination. They were among Trump's best supporters in the primaries. Trump pledged conservative judges, which is anathema to the Northern areas that may support Trump and a more moderate economically minded GOP but are turned off by the social issues.

This Northern strategy assumes the collapse of the GOP's evangelical core, which would assume they became powerless, which is not quite happening without a major event to convince the GOP to shift from the Reagan formula. I don't see that absent a sea change in American politics, on the order of say, the post-World War II political regime shifting to the left drastically in Europe and the Conservatives coping by adopting the strategy you outline.

Your Northern strategy, in other words, IMO, may make sense but it only makes sense in the context of the Democrats realigning the country and the GOP responding by adopting your strategy to stay viable.

I don't think you understand how much Christianity is declining in this country.  And thus the GOP will portray itself as the protector of secularism against religious immigrants.  This is basically what's happening in Europe.

I doubt that the shrinking base of Christian conservatives will allow this to happen. At the least they'll fight tooth and nail. Most Republican politicians and voters are very religious still, and many are just as religious as the immigrants they oppose. Democrats have been the relatively-secular party, but in the future (as they are now) I see them being a pluralist party, meaning that they accommodate different religions and ethnicity under their coalition. Republicans under Trump will continue down the path of being a white Christian party unless they change something.
Logged
CELTICEMPIRE
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,826
Georgia



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2017, 06:43:35 PM »

I don't understand how the GOP executes the Northern strategy without abandoning their Southern and Interior West base, and the evangelical conservatives. I would assume there would need to be a sea change in American politics for the Northern Strategy to be effective, since it would effectively repudiate the Reagan coalition. E.g, it would shift the GOP coalition to the North, with an intent to be competitive in working class pockets of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, as well as New Jersey.

The big problem is that the Southern evangelicals and the cultural conservatives have an iron grip on the Party's nomination. They were among Trump's best supporters in the primaries. Trump pledged conservative judges, which is anathema to the Northern areas that may support Trump and a more moderate economically minded GOP but are turned off by the social issues.

This Northern strategy assumes the collapse of the GOP's evangelical core, which would assume they became powerless, which is not quite happening without a major event to convince the GOP to shift from the Reagan formula. I don't see that absent a sea change in American politics, on the order of say, the post-World War II political regime shifting to the left drastically in Europe and the Conservatives coping by adopting the strategy you outline.

Your Northern strategy, in other words, IMO, may make sense but it only makes sense in the context of the Democrats realigning the country and the GOP responding by adopting your strategy to stay viable.

I don't think you understand how much Christianity is declining in this country.  And thus the GOP will portray itself as the protector of secularism against religious immigrants.  This is basically what's happening in Europe.

I doubt that the shrinking base of Christian conservatives will allow this to happen. At the least they'll fight tooth and nail. Most Republican politicians and voters are very religious still, and many are just as religious as the immigrants they oppose. Democrats have been the relatively-secular party, but in the future (as they are now) I see them being a pluralist party, meaning that they accommodate different religions and ethnicity under their coalition. Republicans under Trump will continue down the path of being a white Christian party unless they change something.

Older Republicans will continue to care about social issues.  But the younger Republicans do not share their concerns.  The right-wing presence on the internet is largely focused on other issues.  Since at least 2015 anti-SJW culture has been a major part of Conservatism.  Anti-SJW culture is not very socially conservative (many who support it are atheists).  And anti-SJW culture is enormously popular with younger Republicans, the future of the party.

Many Republican politicians are publicly religious to pander for votes.  The political elite in the GOP wants to abandon social conservatism now that it isn't as useful as it was in 2004.  There will be very little resistance from them.  Just take a look at the fact that Republicans aren't exploiting the transgender bathroom issue like they did with gay marriage.  Social issues are clearly no longer a focus of the GOP.
Logged
America Needs Jesus Christ
ExtremeRepublican
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,564


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2017, 07:09:27 PM »

I don't understand how the GOP executes the Northern strategy without abandoning their Southern and Interior West base, and the evangelical conservatives. I would assume there would need to be a sea change in American politics for the Northern Strategy to be effective, since it would effectively repudiate the Reagan coalition. E.g, it would shift the GOP coalition to the North, with an intent to be competitive in working class pockets of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, as well as New Jersey.

The big problem is that the Southern evangelicals and the cultural conservatives have an iron grip on the Party's nomination. They were among Trump's best supporters in the primaries. Trump pledged conservative judges, which is anathema to the Northern areas that may support Trump and a more moderate economically minded GOP but are turned off by the social issues.

This Northern strategy assumes the collapse of the GOP's evangelical core, which would assume they became powerless, which is not quite happening without a major event to convince the GOP to shift from the Reagan formula. I don't see that absent a sea change in American politics, on the order of say, the post-World War II political regime shifting to the left drastically in Europe and the Conservatives coping by adopting the strategy you outline.

Your Northern strategy, in other words, IMO, may make sense but it only makes sense in the context of the Democrats realigning the country and the GOP responding by adopting your strategy to stay viable.

I don't think you understand how much Christianity is declining in this country.  And thus the GOP will portray itself as the protector of secularism against religious immigrants.  This is basically what's happening in Europe.

I doubt that the shrinking base of Christian conservatives will allow this to happen. At the least they'll fight tooth and nail. Most Republican politicians and voters are very religious still, and many are just as religious as the immigrants they oppose. Democrats have been the relatively-secular party, but in the future (as they are now) I see them being a pluralist party, meaning that they accommodate different religions and ethnicity under their coalition. Republicans under Trump will continue down the path of being a white Christian party unless they change something.

Older Republicans will continue to care about social issues.  But the younger Republicans do not share their concerns.  The right-wing presence on the internet is largely focused on other issues.  Since at least 2015 anti-SJW culture has been a major part of Conservatism.  Anti-SJW culture is not very socially conservative (many who support it are atheists).  And anti-SJW culture is enormously popular with younger Republicans, the future of the party.

Many Republican politicians are publicly religious to pander for votes.  The political elite in the GOP wants to abandon social conservatism now that it isn't as useful as it was in 2004.  There will be very little resistance from them.  Just take a look at the fact that Republicans aren't exploiting the transgender bathroom issue like they did with gay marriage.  Social issues are clearly no longer a focus of the GOP.

You do realize that the SJWs are pushing for very liberal social policies, and the people who push back against it do because they realize they're insane.  Anyway, we're not going away (the youngest generation is arguably the most against abortion of any generation, for example).  Social conservatives are a HUGE voting block, and the GOP would be dead without us.
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,502
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2017, 08:21:39 PM »

Being against "SJW" stuff (ie gender equality, lgbt equality, racial equality) is socially conservative. It is just a less-religious form, but don't kid yourself about the GOP becoming any more tolerant due to a decrease in religiosity.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,784


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 06, 2017, 08:23:48 PM »

I don't understand how the GOP executes the Northern strategy without abandoning their Southern and Interior West base, and the evangelical conservatives. I would assume there would need to be a sea change in American politics for the Northern Strategy to be effective, since it would effectively repudiate the Reagan coalition. E.g, it would shift the GOP coalition to the North, with an intent to be competitive in working class pockets of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, as well as New Jersey.

The big problem is that the Southern evangelicals and the cultural conservatives have an iron grip on the Party's nomination. They were among Trump's best supporters in the primaries. Trump pledged conservative judges, which is anathema to the Northern areas that may support Trump and a more moderate economically minded GOP but are turned off by the social issues.

This Northern strategy assumes the collapse of the GOP's evangelical core, which would assume they became powerless, which is not quite happening without a major event to convince the GOP to shift from the Reagan formula. I don't see that absent a sea change in American politics, on the order of say, the post-World War II political regime shifting to the left drastically in Europe and the Conservatives coping by adopting the strategy you outline.

Your Northern strategy, in other words, IMO, may make sense but it only makes sense in the context of the Democrats realigning the country and the GOP responding by adopting your strategy to stay viable.

I don't think you understand how much Christianity is declining in this country.  And thus the GOP will portray itself as the protector of secularism against religious immigrants.  This is basically what's happening in Europe.

I doubt that the shrinking base of Christian conservatives will allow this to happen. At the least they'll fight tooth and nail. Most Republican politicians and voters are very religious still, and many are just as religious as the immigrants they oppose. Democrats have been the relatively-secular party, but in the future (as they are now) I see them being a pluralist party, meaning that they accommodate different religions and ethnicity under their coalition. Republicans under Trump will continue down the path of being a white Christian party unless they change something.

Older Republicans will continue to care about social issues.  But the younger Republicans do not share their concerns.  The right-wing presence on the internet is largely focused on other issues.  Since at least 2015 anti-SJW culture has been a major part of Conservatism.  Anti-SJW culture is not very socially conservative (many who support it are atheists).  And anti-SJW culture is enormously popular with younger Republicans, the future of the party.

Many Republican politicians are publicly religious to pander for votes.  The political elite in the GOP wants to abandon social conservatism now that it isn't as useful as it was in 2004.  There will be very little resistance from them.  Just take a look at the fact that Republicans aren't exploiting the transgender bathroom issue like they did with gay marriage.  Social issues are clearly no longer a focus of the GOP.

You do realize that the SJWs are pushing for very liberal social policies, and the people who push back against it do because they realize they're insane.  Anyway, we're not going away (the youngest generation is arguably the most against abortion of any generation, for example).  Social conservatives are a HUGE voting block, and the GOP would be dead without us.

I think he just proved my point.
Logged
CELTICEMPIRE
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,826
Georgia



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2017, 08:51:00 PM »

I don't understand how the GOP executes the Northern strategy without abandoning their Southern and Interior West base, and the evangelical conservatives. I would assume there would need to be a sea change in American politics for the Northern Strategy to be effective, since it would effectively repudiate the Reagan coalition. E.g, it would shift the GOP coalition to the North, with an intent to be competitive in working class pockets of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, as well as New Jersey.

The big problem is that the Southern evangelicals and the cultural conservatives have an iron grip on the Party's nomination. They were among Trump's best supporters in the primaries. Trump pledged conservative judges, which is anathema to the Northern areas that may support Trump and a more moderate economically minded GOP but are turned off by the social issues.

This Northern strategy assumes the collapse of the GOP's evangelical core, which would assume they became powerless, which is not quite happening without a major event to convince the GOP to shift from the Reagan formula. I don't see that absent a sea change in American politics, on the order of say, the post-World War II political regime shifting to the left drastically in Europe and the Conservatives coping by adopting the strategy you outline.

Your Northern strategy, in other words, IMO, may make sense but it only makes sense in the context of the Democrats realigning the country and the GOP responding by adopting your strategy to stay viable.

I don't think you understand how much Christianity is declining in this country.  And thus the GOP will portray itself as the protector of secularism against religious immigrants.  This is basically what's happening in Europe.

I doubt that the shrinking base of Christian conservatives will allow this to happen. At the least they'll fight tooth and nail. Most Republican politicians and voters are very religious still, and many are just as religious as the immigrants they oppose. Democrats have been the relatively-secular party, but in the future (as they are now) I see them being a pluralist party, meaning that they accommodate different religions and ethnicity under their coalition. Republicans under Trump will continue down the path of being a white Christian party unless they change something.

Older Republicans will continue to care about social issues.  But the younger Republicans do not share their concerns.  The right-wing presence on the internet is largely focused on other issues.  Since at least 2015 anti-SJW culture has been a major part of Conservatism.  Anti-SJW culture is not very socially conservative (many who support it are atheists).  And anti-SJW culture is enormously popular with younger Republicans, the future of the party.

Many Republican politicians are publicly religious to pander for votes.  The political elite in the GOP wants to abandon social conservatism now that it isn't as useful as it was in 2004.  There will be very little resistance from them.  Just take a look at the fact that Republicans aren't exploiting the transgender bathroom issue like they did with gay marriage.  Social issues are clearly no longer a focus of the GOP.

You do realize that the SJWs are pushing for very liberal social policies, and the people who push back against it do because they realize they're insane.  Anyway, we're not going away (the youngest generation is arguably the most against abortion of any generation, for example).  Social conservatives are a HUGE voting block, and the GOP would be dead without us.

I don't support the Northern Strategy, I'm just saying it's a reality (and in some ways the logical conclusion of the Southern Strategy).

The GOP can retain social conservatives because the Democrats are always going to be at least one step ahead of them.  The GOP is rapidly moving left on social issues, just not as rapidly as the Democrats.  Religion is declining in America and it would be declining much faster if it wasn't for immigrants.  Soon enough an atheist who lives in Boston is going to realize that the biggest threat to social liberalism in America is not Joe the farmer who lives in Missouri (as it used to be), it's the immigrant who lives only a few blocks away.  When this happens in large numbers throughout America's cities and suburbs, there will be a massive wave of Middle and Upper-class xenophobia.  As much as I hate to say it, the GOP is probably going to pander to these people.  Of course, many Republicans will dissent, but their voices will be increasingly marginalized.
Logged
CELTICEMPIRE
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,826
Georgia



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2017, 12:55:19 PM »

This could be the typical map in the near future:



This is an example of what a Republican landslide might look like under the Northern Strategy:



And when we see this map the Northern Strategy is on it's way out (probably in 2048):

Logged
Based Judge Schroeder
RFayette
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2017, 08:29:12 PM »

CELTICEmpire, one of the reasons I disagree with you is that by all accounts, the GOP base is far more religious than the voter base of the Democrats.  And even young Republicans are overwhelmingly pro-life (yes, some of the alt-right ones on the Internet aren't, but most on the ground are) despite being more liberal on other social issues.  Furthermore, it's very hard to envision the GOP being the "defenders of secularism" against a Democratic Party that has lurched greatly leftward on social issues, from transgender rights to harsh restrictions on religious liberty (such as SB 1146 in California, of great concern to Evangelicals, especially for its precedent-setting effect).   Interestingly, the rapidly increasing diversity of the Democratic Party hasn't even slowed this progress down at all, despite the relatively higher religiosity of Latinos and blacks.   So while I agree the GOP will secularize, I could never see a plausible situation in which it becomes more hospital to voters who prioritize secularism over the Democratic Party.  Perhaps immigration will change matters, but the simple fact is that the Democratic Party has gotten far less white (and has more 1st-generation immigrants) over the past few decades, and it has gotten more pro-choice and secular, not less.
Logged
CELTICEMPIRE
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,826
Georgia



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2017, 11:43:30 PM »

CELTICEmpire, one of the reasons I disagree with you is that by all accounts, the GOP base is far more religious than the voter base of the Democrats.  And even young Republicans are overwhelmingly pro-life (yes, some of the alt-right ones on the Internet aren't, but most on the ground are) despite being more liberal on other social issues.  Furthermore, it's very hard to envision the GOP being the "defenders of secularism" against a Democratic Party that has lurched greatly leftward on social issues, from transgender rights to harsh restrictions on religious liberty (such as SB 1146 in California, of great concern to Evangelicals, especially for its precedent-setting effect).   Interestingly, the rapidly increasing diversity of the Democratic Party hasn't even slowed this progress down at all, despite the relatively higher religiosity of Latinos and blacks.   So while I agree the GOP will secularize, I could never see a plausible situation in which it becomes more hospital to voters who prioritize secularism over the Democratic Party.  Perhaps immigration will change matters, but the simple fact is that the Democratic Party has gotten far less white (and has more 1st-generation immigrants) over the past few decades, and it has gotten more pro-choice and secular, not less.

Are young Republicans pro-life?  I'm pleasantly surprised by that.

As for Republican religiosity, that is declining.  And much of modern American Christianity, especially in the Bible Belt is the "God and country" type.  Many of these people worship American culture while thinking they are worshiping God.  They are often more concerned about "Happy Holidays" than abortion.

While it may seem odd that the GOP would abandon its stance on life, remember that political parties have betrayed their constituencies when it is convenient for them (i.e. Southern Strategy).  Religious people will continue voting Republican because the Democrats are worse.  Religious conservatives might fight against this, but they will lose.  When one group has public opinion on its side and the other has money on its side, the side with the money wins 9/10 times.  The Republican elite despises Evangelicals while applauding them for being good footsoldiers.  Social Conservatives may have the numbers within the GOP but the Northern Strategy has the money.  Trump won't even protect religious liberty, that shows how much he cares about a large number of his voters.

As for the Democrats, white liberals control the party.  Sure, large numbers of black and Hispanic voters are religious, but, like the Evangelicals in the GOP, they are the footsoldiers and not the political elite.  And white Democrats are moving very quickly to the left on social issues.  The "spiritual but not religious" types will remain part of the Democrat base.  But I think that many of the hardcore atheists will be horrified by religious immigrants moving into Boston, New York, and San Francisco, and will want to do anything to keep these cities secular, even if it means voting Republican.  The local Republican Parties in these cities are already socially liberal.

As I heard a British Christian once say (I'm paraphrasing): "30 years ago, Britain was in the same situation spiritually as the United States."  Right-wingers in the Netherlands are already promoting themselves as the defenders of social liberalism.
Logged
Based Judge Schroeder
RFayette
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2017, 12:10:33 AM »

Here's the link regarding young Republicans' beliefs on abortion.  They actually support legal abortion even less than older ones:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/03/11/young_republicans_are_even_more_likely_than_old_republicans_to_oppose_legal.html


Also, the Hispanic and black congresspeople in majority-minority districts vote almost identically on social issues to other whites.

Honestly, I agree with you that it is possible (though it would be very sad) that the GOP would drop its pro-life plank.  But I do not share your optimism that immigrants would have any potential of moving the country in a more socially conservative direction.  Unlike Evangelicals, who at the very least have their pro-life/religious liberty interests largely represented in both the GOP policy platform and in Congress, socially conservative minority Democrats have no such representation of those beliefs within their party. If the minority representatives of the GOP (both black and Hispanic) actually began to show some distance between the white party elites on abortion and religious freedom, then I suppose it's possible, but unfortunately it does not seem too likely.
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,502
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2017, 12:12:49 AM »

"Right-wingers in the Netherlands are already promoting themselves as the defenders of social liberalism."

Yeah, see, the problem is that the right-wing hates social liberalism. It's hypocritical for them to claim that they defend it. In reality, they're using xenophobia to drive a wedge between social liberals and immigrant groups who would ally with the socially liberal parties on economic issues.
Logged
America Needs Jesus Christ
ExtremeRepublican
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,564


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2017, 11:37:20 AM »

Here's the link regarding young Republicans' beliefs on abortion.  They actually support legal abortion even less than older ones:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/03/11/young_republicans_are_even_more_likely_than_old_republicans_to_oppose_legal.html


Also, the Hispanic and black congresspeople in majority-minority districts vote almost identically on social issues to other whites.

Honestly, I agree with you that it is possible (though it would be very sad) that the GOP would drop its pro-life plank.  But I do not share your optimism that immigrants would have any potential of moving the country in a more socially conservative direction.  Unlike Evangelicals, who at the very least have their pro-life/religious liberty interests largely represented in both the GOP policy platform and in Congress, socially conservative minority Democrats have no such representation of those beliefs within their party. If the minority representatives of the GOP (both black and Hispanic) actually began to show some distance between the white party elites on abortion and religious freedom, then I suppose it's possible, but unfortunately it does not seem too likely.

If that ever happened, I would leave the GOP just like that, and I suspect I wouldn't be the only one.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,784


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2017, 11:52:53 AM »

At some point, though, the GOP is going to have to quit with gay marriage, gay rights, and probably the death penalty. A lot of 18-29 find the whole birth control drama idiotic. Ditto the whole creationism thing in public schools, which just sounds anachronistic to a generation that firmly believes evolution happened.

Just be pro-gay rights, pro-life, and generally in line with the scientific community on social issues and the environment and the GOP would probably start attracting more (net) votes.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,194


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2017, 12:20:43 PM »

I don't understand how the GOP executes the Northern strategy without abandoning their Southern and Interior West base, and the evangelical conservatives. I would assume there would need to be a sea change in American politics for the Northern Strategy to be effective, since it would effectively repudiate the Reagan coalition. E.g, it would shift the GOP coalition to the North, with an intent to be competitive in working class pockets of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, as well as New Jersey.

The big problem is that the Southern evangelicals and the cultural conservatives have an iron grip on the Party's nomination. They were among Trump's best supporters in the primaries. Trump pledged conservative judges, which is anathema to the Northern areas that may support Trump and a more moderate economically minded GOP but are turned off by the social issues.

This Northern strategy assumes the collapse of the GOP's evangelical core, which would assume they became powerless, which is not quite happening without a major event to convince the GOP to shift from the Reagan formula. I don't see that absent a sea change in American politics, on the order of say, the post-World War II political regime shifting to the left drastically in Europe and the Conservatives coping by adopting the strategy you outline.

Your Northern strategy, in other words, IMO, may make sense but it only makes sense in the context of the Democrats realigning the country and the GOP responding by adopting your strategy to stay viable.

I don't think you understand how much Christianity is declining in this country.  And thus the GOP will portray itself as the protector of secularism against religious immigrants.  This is basically what's happening in Europe.

I doubt that the shrinking base of Christian conservatives will allow this to happen. At the least they'll fight tooth and nail. Most Republican politicians and voters are very religious still, and many are just as religious as the immigrants they oppose. Democrats have been the relatively-secular party, but in the future (as they are now) I see them being a pluralist party, meaning that they accommodate different religions and ethnicity under their coalition. Republicans under Trump will continue down the path of being a white Christian party unless they change something.

Older Republicans will continue to care about social issues.  But the younger Republicans do not share their concerns.  The right-wing presence on the internet is largely focused on other issues.  Since at least 2015 anti-SJW culture has been a major part of Conservatism.  Anti-SJW culture is not very socially conservative (many who support it are atheists).  And anti-SJW culture is enormously popular with younger Republicans, the future of the party.

Many Republican politicians are publicly religious to pander for votes.  The political elite in the GOP wants to abandon social conservatism now that it isn't as useful as it was in 2004.  There will be very little resistance from them.  Just take a look at the fact that Republicans aren't exploiting the transgender bathroom issue like they did with gay marriage.  Social issues are clearly no longer a focus of the GOP.

You do realize that the SJWs are pushing for very liberal social policies, and the people who push back against it do because they realize they're insane.  Anyway, we're not going away (the youngest generation is arguably the most against abortion of any generation, for example).  Social conservatives are a HUGE voting block, and the GOP would be dead without us.

I don't support the Northern Strategy, I'm just saying it's a reality (and in some ways the logical conclusion of the Southern Strategy).

The GOP can retain social conservatives because the Democrats are always going to be at least one step ahead of them.  The GOP is rapidly moving left on social issues, just not as rapidly as the Democrats.  Religion is declining in America and it would be declining much faster if it wasn't for immigrants.  Soon enough an atheist who lives in Boston is going to realize that the biggest threat to social liberalism in America is not Joe the farmer who lives in Missouri (as it used to be), it's the immigrant who lives only a few blocks away.  When this happens in large numbers throughout America's cities and suburbs, there will be a massive wave of Middle and Upper-class xenophobia.  As much as I hate to say it, the GOP is probably going to pander to these people.  Of course, many Republicans will dissent, but their voices will be increasingly marginalized.

This would make sense in the context of European-style immigration by working class people from the Middle East and Africa. In America, however, most immigration is either by working class people from Latin America or from well educated people from Asia. Latin Americans have a culture very similar to ours so I don't think the Boston atheist is going to be concerned by that. And his friends will likely be well educated Asians so there's that.
Logged
blacknwhiterose
Rookie
**
Posts: 93


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2017, 01:43:51 PM »
« Edited: February 08, 2017, 01:46:11 PM by blacknwhiterose »


Future elections will probably be more about the coasts (globalists) vs middle america (white nationalists) than north vs south.  Republicans needed to go the populist route because there aren't enough white Christian conservatives out there to win elections and their numbers are depleting every year.  The next logical extension of their base would be working class whites who are less religious (former union people, etc.).  They gladly traded white college educated suburbanites for this because the suburbanites they are losing are largely in states they had no chance in anyways. 

I do think this strategy is fine for them in the short term, but will kill their party in 20 years, especially for the White House and the House.  The Senate will probably be their last bastion of support.

I agree with this, but get this: many non-whites over time could also find themselves on the Republican/Nationalist/Populist side of the spectrum, provided the Republicans can avoid the Richard Spencer wing of the alt-right and actually start talking to minorities who feel increasingly betrayed by the Democratic Party.  As the GOP becomes more economic populist, the big business conservatives will drift over to the Democrats, a party that is already controlled at its core by urban/coastal (mostly white) elites.  Bernie-type Democrats who are genuinely disadvantaged, could move over to the GOP, including even some inner city minorities.  Hispanics for that matter, I think are naturally becoming swing voters over the next 20 years.  They are already not monolithic, if The Wall and the ensuing media onslaught couldn't make Hispanic-identifying voters monolithically anti-Trump, nothing will.

There's an interesting article here, about what the 2 parties could look like in 15-20 years if trends continue:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/opinion/time-for-a-realignment.html?_r=0 

Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« 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 0.112 seconds with 13 queries.