|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 07, 2020, 08:21:51 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  Serious Q for Republicans
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Print
Author Topic: Serious Q for Republicans  (Read 5572 times)
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,468
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: February 13, 2017, 04:55:40 pm »

Tartarus, you are half-right and half-wrong. What you must remember is there are ALWAYS more people than elites. That's how Trump won.

Will you stop acting like Clinton voters were "elites"?

-Romney-Clinton voters were mostly elites.

That's the point: White people with college degrees aren't "elite," they're very mainstream.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,415
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: February 17, 2017, 09:01:05 pm »

Tartarus, you are half-right and half-wrong. What you must remember is there are ALWAYS more people than elites. That's how Trump won.

Will you stop acting like Clinton voters were "elites"?

-Romney-Clinton voters were mostly elites.

That's the point: White people with college degrees aren't "elite," they're very mainstream.

Yeah. Who exactly is he talking about? Not the guy in that Identity Theft moving with Jenny McCartney...
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: February 18, 2017, 09:39:22 pm »

Demographics is destiny,  Part 87744081116664327 - as the Democratic Party controls quite close to absolutely nothing at any level of government.
I'm sure the Dems numbers will go up in 2018 with controlling Governors Mansions and Congressional Seats.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: February 18, 2017, 09:58:39 pm »

I think the fundamental disagreements about which groups are, which groups aren't, and which groups could potentially be conservative has to do with the fact that the different ideological factions of conservatism are splintering and in the process of potentially realigning. The foreign policy conservatives are already some of the most alienated from the current shift under Trump, which is why so many of the former Reagan through Bush Jr. era security-intelligence community and state department officials overwhelmingly backed Clinton. Socially moderate, fiscal conservatives were also appalled by Trump and swung against him in many suburbs across the nation during the election, and this is the group that has the greatest potential for even further alienation from the conservative coalition. College-educated Whites compose a rather large percentage of this branch of the conservative coalition, and college educated whites are far less receptive to authoritarian populism than working class whites.

And then there's the social conservatives, who I would argue are the true lifeblood of the Republican party, and also the reason that the original conservative coalition is possibly on the verge of unraveling entirely. The Religious Right has so heavily affixed themselves to the Republican platform that they have essentially politicized the Republican party into a self-styled "Christian" party. No, you don't have to be Christian to be a Republican, but "traditional" Christian values are a hallmark of the Republican brand. The crux of the matter is that American society is increasingly not accepting traditional Christian values as the standard, and the Evangelicals, conservative Catholics, and conservative Mainlines have as a result fulfilled the role of cultural reactionaries. Trump has finalized the transfer of a new group of cultural reactionaries who aren't nearly as religiously minded yet still have political enemies in common with social conservatives: liberals, illegal immigrants, and Muslims.

Trump is now overwhelmingly backed by conservative Christians despite a cool reception at first, because he has promised to be their culturally reactionary champion. He has pandered to them in the most obscenely hollow of ways, yet that in itself should indicate how they will accept anybody who pantomimes their values no matter how insincere and shallow the display may be. They are desperate to turn back the tide of a diversifying, liberalizing, and increasingly pluralist society that doesn't follow their norms.

The threat here is that Trump could end up realigning the axis of the Republican party. Traditionally, social conservatives and social moderates in the right wing have found common ground on economic issues. Trump has the potential to shift that alliance into one between social conservatives and economic protectionists by having cultural reactionism usurp fiscal policy as the unifying link between factions. That would wholesale alienate the majority of your educated suburban, socially moderate Republicans that already swung against Trump in the general election. That should serve as an omen to what could happen to an even greater degree if cultural issues become the defining feature of the Republican party under Trump's auspices, because college-educated, fiscally conservative Republicans have more in common culturally with college educated liberals than they do with either social conservatives or the Trump faction.

I'm not saying this necessarily will happen, but if it does, it's the recipe for Republicans delegating themselves to the status of a minority party for at least a couple of decades. They would become the party of White Christian nationalism during a period of time when a rising tide of minorities, immigrants, Millennials, and college-educated Whites want nothing to do with White Christian nationalism. This is what the Republicans must keep in mind if they want to remain a viable party on the national level.

I think this analysis is 100% correct and there are already major signs of this shift... I was shocked by the margins Hillary won rich Republican towns in Fairfield County, CT.

The Trump strategy was viable in 2016 and perhaps will even be viable in 2020 because the trade off is OK for the short term (write off moderate suburbs in CT, CO, VA, IL but win more voters in MI, PA, etc. and you net more swing states)... but I agree this trade off is disastrous in the long term for Republicans... not just because there aren't enough religious white nationalists to support a national party but because then the GOP will also alienate the entire college-educated and higher class of people that controls big business, law firms, newspapers, media, technology, etc.
CT hasn't gone Republican in a Presidential Election since 1988 and it has been solid Dem at the Congressional Level since the 2006 mid-term elections. Same thing with IL in that a Republican Presidential Candidate hasn't win the state since 1988. I think if the Hispanic Population keeps growing as a % of the states population that IL might be enough for a Generic Dem Presidential Candidate to keep the state in the D Column for a long while even with Cook County losing overall in migration numbers.

Not enough religious white people-maybe.  Not enough white nationalists- no. Not enough nationalists-maybe.

The GOP alienates big business-I don't see that.
Law Firms-Attorneys donate to mostly Dems anyway.
Newspapers-Articles written in newspapers that are political are mostly written by Dems.
Media-Mainstream Media has always voted for Dems.
Technology-Maybe, but Silicon Valley is Dem anyways.


Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: February 18, 2017, 10:13:46 pm »
« Edited: February 18, 2017, 10:15:58 pm by hopper »

If Kasich and Rubio don't count as "conservative" by your definition, clearly your definition is very narrow...

-Rubio's conservative, Kasich is not. It is, thus, notable, that Rubio (much as I dislike him) voted for Trump and Kasich didn't.

Based on this post, all I can assume is that "whether or not they voted for Trump" is your only qualifier for "conservatism", which I still consider to be a very weird definition.

-Nope. I'm going by Congressional voting record here. Jeff Flake's conservative, for instance.

Okay, I'll bite. On which issues is Kasich not conservative on?

-Immigration, Medicaid expansion, Roe v. Wade, same-sex marriage, Common Core.

Immigration-He supports Immigration Reform-yes.
Medicaid Expansion-Yes he supported Medicaid Expansion in his state.
SSM-He supports traditional marriage but is not hardline against SSM like other Republicans are on the topic.  He attended a gay friends wedding.
Common Core-He likes the ideas of the program but not the program itself.
Abortion-He did defund Planned Parenthood in his state but supports exceptions on the topic like rape and incest.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: February 18, 2017, 10:45:49 pm »

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes. Cheesy

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

-RINO, people like you did not vote for HRC because she was an avatar of conservatism. Look at your political matrix score. Now look at mine. These people were merely Carter-hating low-tax liberals. I'm not a fan. As for the True Conservatives, every single county in Indiana that went for Cruz in the primary trended towards Trump in the general. And every county that trended against Trump in Indiana had a Kasich vote share above that of Indiana as a whole. It wasn't conservative Republicans that crossed party lines this year to vote for HRC. It was the least conservative portion of the party. Just compare Kasich and Cruz's congressional voting records.
See that might be a problem in the future for Republicans in that are people are moving to cities which are Dem and suburbs around the cities which is where the least Conservative parts of the Republican Party are located. People aren't moving to counties which Cruz won and that trended towards Trump. Republicans might have to have modify their policies on the Federal Level sooner or later because of where people are moving to currently.
Logged
JoshPA
Rookie
**
Posts: 239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: February 19, 2017, 11:13:23 am »

Doesn't it concern you at least somewhat that Democrats wipe the floor with you each and every election with minority voters?  There isn't even a positive trend.  Yet every 4 years they become an additional 2% of the vote.  You do realize at some point winning becomes implausible unless you improve among African Americans/Hispanics/Asians right? 

What is the long term strategy here?

Another thing to keep in mind... people that are around 25-45 are probably the most liberal current generation, thanks in large part to George W. Bush.  This group is going to replace the 80+ year olds who die off in the next 10-20 years.  So the country is probably going to get more liberal as well...
generation x is going to balance out. plus you still got the generation before
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administrator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,198
Ukraine


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: February 19, 2017, 11:44:31 am »

generation x is going to balance out. plus you still got the generation before

What does that mean, and how do you know?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines