2008, 2012, 2016

[Pro-Israel, anti-Bibi]

All had a front runner Republican candidate and a social conservative in second place.

2016: Trump, Cruz
2012: Romney, Santorum
2008: McCain, Huckabee

Anyone think 2024 will be similar? Who's most likely to carry the social conservatism mantle?

[tosk]

The way I would reframe this is "why do winners of the Iowa caucus tend to come up short?"

It seems to me that the committed social conservative candidates are just not good fits for the party at large. Most of the time culture warriors aren't able to wrangle control the way the establishment candidates tend to. That being said, there's always cases such as Trump. He didn't really portray himself as a social conservatives, but he was the culture warrior in 2016.

That being said, a reversion wouldn't surprise me, with the establishment (Pence/Haley/Rubio etc) comes out over the social conservative (Hawley/Cruz/Pompeo). Establishment candidates get picked by the establishment for a reason, and it's normally that they're the most broadly palpable choice.

it could also end up being a fusion of the two who wins the primary next time. Trump would probably fit in both categories. Oddly enough, Ben Sasse probably would too.

[MargieCat]

I could see Cruz getting second place again.

Just like how Sanders got second place to Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020 to a more establishment friendly candidate.

[The Houstonian]

The way I would reframe this is "why do winners of the Iowa caucus tend to come up short?"

It seems to me that the committed social conservative candidates are just not good fits for the party at large. Most of the time culture warriors aren't able to wrangle control the way the establishment candidates tend to. That being said, there's always cases such as Trump. He didn't really portray himself as a social conservatives, but he was the culture warrior in 2016.

That being said, a reversion wouldn't surprise me, with the establishment (Pence/Haley/Rubio etc) comes out over the social conservative (Hawley/Cruz/Pompeo). Establishment candidates get picked by the establishment for a reason, and it's normally that they're the most broadly palpable choice.

it could also end up being a fusion of the two who wins the primary next time. Trump would probably fit in both categories. Oddly enough, Ben Sasse probably would too.

Trump is a very different type of culture warrior. I think that his indifference towards gay marriage and other issues of morality will become the norm among GOP candidates.

[Hope For A New Era]

The way I would reframe this is "why do winners of the Iowa caucus tend to come up short?"

It seems to me that the committed social conservative candidates are just not good fits for the party at large. Most of the time culture warriors aren't able to wrangle control the way the establishment candidates tend to. That being said, there's always cases such as Trump. He didn't really portray himself as a social conservatives, but he was the culture warrior in 2016.

That being said, a reversion wouldn't surprise me, with the establishment (Pence/Haley/Rubio etc) comes out over the social conservative (Hawley/Cruz/Pompeo). Establishment candidates get picked by the establishment for a reason, and it's normally that they're the most broadly palpable choice.

it could also end up being a fusion of the two who wins the primary next time. Trump would probably fit in both categories. Oddly enough, Ben Sasse probably would too.

Trump is a very different type of culture warrior. I think that his indifference towards gay marriage and other issues of morality will become the norm among GOP candidates.

Another sign that we're finally, at long last, exiting the Reagan Era of moral panics. It couldn't have come soon enough.

[McGarnagle]

I believe Pence will reverse this trend, he'll win both Iowa and the nomination, but ultimately will lose the election to Biden or Harris

[The Houstonian]

The way I would reframe this is "why do winners of the Iowa caucus tend to come up short?"

It seems to me that the committed social conservative candidates are just not good fits for the party at large. Most of the time culture warriors aren't able to wrangle control the way the establishment candidates tend to. That being said, there's always cases such as Trump. He didn't really portray himself as a social conservatives, but he was the culture warrior in 2016.

That being said, a reversion wouldn't surprise me, with the establishment (Pence/Haley/Rubio etc) comes out over the social conservative (Hawley/Cruz/Pompeo). Establishment candidates get picked by the establishment for a reason, and it's normally that they're the most broadly palpable choice.

it could also end up being a fusion of the two who wins the primary next time. Trump would probably fit in both categories. Oddly enough, Ben Sasse probably would too.

Trump is a very different type of culture warrior. I think that his indifference towards gay marriage and other issues of morality will become the norm among GOP candidates.

Another sign that we're finally, at long last, exiting the Reagan Era of moral panics. It couldn't have come soon enough.

They have been replaced with the War on Christmas Thanksgiving.

[Gustaf]

Trumpists are a bit peculiar in that they are just driven by rage and hate and lack any kind of independent moral core of their own. So they are, for example, homophobic, but not because of "sanctity of marriage" (they'll enjoy banging prostitutes on the side, etc) but more because it's fun to be cruel to people who are different. They care about saying "Merry Christmas" but not because they want to celebrate the birth of Jesus but rather because they hope it might upset people who aren't Christian. And so on.

I think this is why Trump did so well among rural whites in the North. Actually religious candidates can make them feel bad about their greed, strip clubs etc but Trump kind of gives people a pass on being immoral.

Whether that development is good or bad isn't entirely clear, though I personally lean towards it being bad.

I think the main clash next time in the GOP primary will be about whether you distance yourself from the Trump legacy or not. Establishment candidates will want to do that to appeal to swing voters but a Trumpist candidate will paint them as sell-outs if they do.

[Intell]

I think there was no relationship between conservatism and the Trump vote in the 2016 primaries, but there was a relationship between white identity and racial resentment in the Trump vote.

[Battista Minola 1616]

I refute the premise that Cruz is the same type of candidate as Huckabee and Santorum.

[Motorcity]

TBH the caucus system is horrible

Never mind the fact that Iowa shouldn't go first, the caucus system is idiotic. It excludes a huge portion of the population. Seriously, who has the time to spends hours on a weeknight. Also can't take public transportation. Hell its so complicated its almost like a mini electoral college system that allows someone to win the most raw votes but not the state.

The only reason Iowa keeps it is because it forces candidates to live in Iowa and get to know literally everyone at the state.

Thus the best candidate rarely tends to win. Its the random nobody who camps in Iowa for a year. This is more so in larger fields.

[Del Tachi]

Trump was perceived as more moderate than Cruz or Rubio in 2016, both among Republican primary voters and the body politic at large

[JGibson]

TBH the caucus system is horrible

Never mind the fact that Iowa shouldn't go first, the caucus system is idiotic. It excludes a huge portion of the population. Seriously, who has the time to spends hours on a weeknight. Also can't take public transportation. Hell its so complicated its almost like a mini electoral college system that allows someone to win the most raw votes but not the state.

The only reason Iowa keeps it is because it forces candidates to live in Iowa and get to know literally everyone at the state.

Thus the best candidate rarely tends to win. Its the random nobody who camps in Iowa for a year. This is more so in larger fields.

I agree with this, especially after the fiasco on my side for the 2020 Iowa Caucus.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2009-2012 me: Huckabee was not in second place damn it!!!


Huckabee came in third in raw votes and if memory serves me only took the delegate lead for second place because MI's delegation reassigned immediately to McCain when Romney dropped out. Meaning Romney won both second place in the popular vote and second place in "won" delegates.

[Tiger08]

There's a difference between being a warrior on issues of religion and the family (what I call social conservatism) vs being a warrior on issues of national identity (what I call cultural conservatism). People who are primarily social conservatives by my definition tend to be less right wing on racial issues than people who primarily cultural conservatives are. Example: George W. Bush.

Trump himself is decidedly the latter. He decided to take up enough social conservative issues like abortion and SCOTUS in order to win both blocs of voters. I expect the GOP to be primarily cultural conservative going forward while throwing enough bones to social conservatives (who won't vote for progressives) to keep them in the fold.

[Gustaf]

There's a difference between being a warrior on issues of religion and the family (what I call social conservatism) vs being a warrior on issues of national identity (what I call cultural conservatism). People who are primarily social conservatives by my definition tend to be less right wing on racial issues than people who primarily cultural conservatives are. Example: George W. Bush.

Trump himself is decidedly the latter. He decided to take up enough social conservative issues like abortion and SCOTUS in order to win both blocs of voters. I expect the GOP to be primarily cultural conservative going forward while throwing enough bones to social conservatives (who won't vote for progressives) to keep them in the fold.

Yeah, I think this is correct. It also seems like most religious conservative leaders have given up on trying to reclaim the party and are settling for some judges.

[Person Man]

There's a difference between being a warrior on issues of religion and the family (what I call social conservatism) vs being a warrior on issues of national identity (what I call cultural conservatism). People who are primarily social conservatives by my definition tend to be less right wing on racial issues than people who primarily cultural conservatives are. Example: George W. Bush.

Trump himself is decidedly the latter. He decided to take up enough social conservative issues like abortion and SCOTUS in order to win both blocs of voters. I expect the GOP to be primarily cultural conservative going forward while throwing enough bones to social conservatives (who won't vote for progressives) to keep them in the fold.

Yeah, I think this is correct. It also seems like most religious conservative leaders have given up on trying to reclaim the party and are settling for some judges.

This works until the legality of abortion and the legal status of homosexuality become legitimate political issues again. Maybe the socons score a "W" and move on?

I really don't think that abortion or even gay marriage will be "settled" the same way segregation and integration was. My guess is that they will become "local" issues so long as they number of jurisdictions that are permissive and prohibitive remain relatively equal?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

There's a difference between being a warrior on issues of religion and the family (what I call social conservatism) vs being a warrior on issues of national identity (what I call cultural conservatism). People who are primarily social conservatives by my definition tend to be less right wing on racial issues than people who primarily cultural conservatives are. Example: George W. Bush.

Trump himself is decidedly the latter. He decided to take up enough social conservative issues like abortion and SCOTUS in order to win both blocs of voters. I expect the GOP to be primarily cultural conservative going forward while throwing enough bones to social conservatives (who won't vote for progressives) to keep them in the fold.

Also, people who prioritize social conservatism over cultural conservatism (in the South at least) are disproportionately located in suburbia, not rural areas.  I'm not saying that it's the dominant ideology across suburbia, but these views tend to follow the trends of higher church attendance in more well-off areas.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

There's a difference between being a warrior on issues of religion and the family (what I call social conservatism) vs being a warrior on issues of national identity (what I call cultural conservatism). People who are primarily social conservatives by my definition tend to be less right wing on racial issues than people who primarily cultural conservatives are. Example: George W. Bush.

Trump himself is decidedly the latter. He decided to take up enough social conservative issues like abortion and SCOTUS in order to win both blocs of voters. I expect the GOP to be primarily cultural conservative going forward while throwing enough bones to social conservatives (who won't vote for progressives) to keep them in the fold.

Yeah, I think this is correct. It also seems like most religious conservative leaders have given up on trying to reclaim the party and are settling for some judges.

This works until the legality of abortion and the legal status of homosexuality become legitimate political issues again. Maybe the socons score a "W" and move on?

I really don't think that abortion or even gay marriage will be "settled" the same way segregation and integration was. My guess is that they will become "local" issues so long as they number of jurisdictions that are permissive and prohibitive remain relatively equal?

I agree wholeheartedly regarding abortion, but I think that gay marriage is more or less a settled issue at this point. Two-thirds of Americans support it, and conservatives have dropped the issue pretty rapidly because they recognize it's a losing battle. Even pre-Obergefell, it was fully legal in 35 states, and several of the remaining 15 states were somewhere in the process of legalizing it after court orders. I also think that the generational divide on this issue is even more stark than on other social issues, so time will only make it more popular.

[EastwoodS]

There's a difference between being a warrior on issues of religion and the family (what I call social conservatism) vs being a warrior on issues of national identity (what I call cultural conservatism). People who are primarily social conservatives by my definition tend to be less right wing on racial issues than people who primarily cultural conservatives are. Example: George W. Bush.

Trump himself is decidedly the latter. He decided to take up enough social conservative issues like abortion and SCOTUS in order to win both blocs of voters. I expect the GOP to be primarily cultural conservative going forward while throwing enough bones to social conservatives (who won't vote for progressives) to keep them in the fold.

Yeah, I think this is correct. It also seems like most religious conservative leaders have given up on trying to reclaim the party and are settling for some judges.

This works until the legality of abortion and the legal status of homosexuality become legitimate political issues again. Maybe the socons score a "W" and move on?

I really don't think that abortion or even gay marriage will be "settled" the same way segregation and integration was. My guess is that they will become "local" issues so long as they number of jurisdictions that are permissive and prohibitive remain relatively equal?

I agree wholeheartedly regarding abortion, but I think that gay marriage is more or less a settled issue at this point. Two-thirds of Americans support it, and conservatives have dropped the issue pretty rapidly because they recognize it's a losing battle. Even pre-Obergefell, it was fully legal in 35 states, and several of the remaining 15 states were somewhere in the process of legalizing it after court orders. I also think that the generational divide on this issue is even more stark than on other social issues, so time will only make it more popular.

Do you think the increasing very catholic Hispanic demographic will change this into a winning issue for Republicans?

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

There's a difference between being a warrior on issues of religion and the family (what I call social conservatism) vs being a warrior on issues of national identity (what I call cultural conservatism). People who are primarily social conservatives by my definition tend to be less right wing on racial issues than people who primarily cultural conservatives are. Example: George W. Bush.

Trump himself is decidedly the latter. He decided to take up enough social conservative issues like abortion and SCOTUS in order to win both blocs of voters. I expect the GOP to be primarily cultural conservative going forward while throwing enough bones to social conservatives (who won't vote for progressives) to keep them in the fold.

Yeah, I think this is correct. It also seems like most religious conservative leaders have given up on trying to reclaim the party and are settling for some judges.

This works until the legality of abortion and the legal status of homosexuality become legitimate political issues again. Maybe the socons score a "W" and move on?

I really don't think that abortion or even gay marriage will be "settled" the same way segregation and integration was. My guess is that they will become "local" issues so long as they number of jurisdictions that are permissive and prohibitive remain relatively equal?

I agree wholeheartedly regarding abortion, but I think that gay marriage is more or less a settled issue at this point. Two-thirds of Americans support it, and conservatives have dropped the issue pretty rapidly because they recognize it's a losing battle. Even pre-Obergefell, it was fully legal in 35 states, and several of the remaining 15 states were somewhere in the process of legalizing it after court orders. I also think that the generational divide on this issue is even more stark than on other social issues, so time will only make it more popular.

Do you think the increasing very catholic Hispanic demographic will change this into a winning issue for Republicans?

Based on all recent surveys I can find, both a majority of Catholics and a majority of Hispanics have supported same-sex marriage for several years now, including a few years before Obergefell. So, I would imagine not.

[Person Man]

There's a difference between being a warrior on issues of religion and the family (what I call social conservatism) vs being a warrior on issues of national identity (what I call cultural conservatism). People who are primarily social conservatives by my definition tend to be less right wing on racial issues than people who primarily cultural conservatives are. Example: George W. Bush.

Trump himself is decidedly the latter. He decided to take up enough social conservative issues like abortion and SCOTUS in order to win both blocs of voters. I expect the GOP to be primarily cultural conservative going forward while throwing enough bones to social conservatives (who won't vote for progressives) to keep them in the fold.

Yeah, I think this is correct. It also seems like most religious conservative leaders have given up on trying to reclaim the party and are settling for some judges.

This works until the legality of abortion and the legal status of homosexuality become legitimate political issues again. Maybe the socons score a "W" and move on?

I really don't think that abortion or even gay marriage will be "settled" the same way segregation and integration was. My guess is that they will become "local" issues so long as they number of jurisdictions that are permissive and prohibitive remain relatively equal?

I agree wholeheartedly regarding abortion, but I think that gay marriage is more or less a settled issue at this point. Two-thirds of Americans support it, and conservatives have dropped the issue pretty rapidly because they recognize it's a losing battle. Even pre-Obergefell, it was fully legal in 35 states, and several of the remaining 15 states were somewhere in the process of legalizing it after court orders. I also think that the generational divide on this issue is even more stark than on other social issues, so time will only make it more popular.

Do you think the increasing very catholic Hispanic demographic will change this into a winning issue for Republicans?

Based on all recent surveys I can find, both a majority of Catholics and a majority of Hispanics have supported same-sex marriage for several years now, including a few years before Obergefell. So, I would imagine not.

Having abortion And marijuana be the next right to work thing and lgbt moving in a more abstract direction could be how the culture wars end. If that is the case, will the refocus on racial issues bring us back to Atwater’s proverbial “n****r n****r n****r”?

[Coolface Sock #42069]

TBH the caucus system is horrible

Never mind the fact that Iowa shouldn't go first, the caucus system is idiotic. It excludes a huge portion of the population. Seriously, who has the time to spends hours on a weeknight. Also can't take public transportation. Hell its so complicated its almost like a mini electoral college system that allows someone to win the most raw votes but not the state.

The only reason Iowa keeps it is because it forces candidates to live in Iowa and get to know literally everyone at the state.

Thus the best candidate rarely tends to win. Its the random nobody who camps in Iowa for a year. This is more so in larger fields.

The random candidate who camps in Iowa for a year never wins the nomination, though.

[darklordoftech]

There's a difference between being a warrior on issues of religion and the family (what I call social conservatism) vs being a warrior on issues of national identity (what I call cultural conservatism). People who are primarily social conservatives by my definition tend to be less right wing on racial issues than people who primarily cultural conservatives are. Example: George W. Bush.

Trump himself is decidedly the latter. He decided to take up enough social conservative issues like abortion and SCOTUS in order to win both blocs of voters. I expect the GOP to be primarily cultural conservative going forward while throwing enough bones to social conservatives (who won't vote for progressives) to keep them in the fold.

Obama’s election definitely increased the power of cultural conservatives in the GOP. Trump was able to take advantage of that shift.

[MABA 2020]

I think the main clash next time in the GOP primary will be about whether you distance yourself from the Trump legacy or not. Establishment candidates will want to do that to appeal to swing voters but a Trumpist candidate will paint them as sell-outs if they do.

Which is why Pence will be the nominee (providing Trump doesn't run) he is basically an establishment candidate but has also been relentlessly loyal to Trump, the prefect compromise. Also name recognition.