What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[Farnhamia]

I freaking live in ye' olde Idaho.

It becomes acceptable if those who use it,pay for it.

Do you pay for the interstate highways that cross your State? Or do my tax dollars help pay for your highways?

Given that Michigan never gets back what we give the Federal government, dollar for dollar, while Idaho gets back more from the Federal government than it pays in, I'm going to take a chance and say that I pay for your fucking highways, as well as the mass transit in my own State. So as far as I'm concerned, you've got no basis whatsoever to bitch about mass transit.

I mean, why in the fuck should I give you all my money? Don't I get a little to keep for my own needs?!? Or did someone die and make you King?

This is the problem I have with conservatives: They refuse to accept that we're all in this together.

Just a note, ASB, you're trying to debate someone who declared "Screw the poor" in the Obamacare thread. He's not interested in anything you have to say except as a straight for a lame joke.

[Regnum Dominae]

Do you pay for the interstate highways that cross your State? Or do my tax dollars help pay for your highways?

Given that Michigan never gets back what we give the Federal government, dollar for dollar, while Idaho gets back more from the Federal government than it pays in, I'm going to take a chance and say that I pay for your fucking highways, as well as the mass transit in my own State. So as far as I'm concerned, you've got no basis whatsoever to bitch about mass transit.

I mean, why in the fuck should I give you all my money? Don't I get a little to keep for my own needs?!? Or did someone die and make you King?

This is the problem I have with conservatives: They refuse to accept that we're all in this together.

Just a note, ASB, you're trying to debate someone who declared "Screw the poor" in the Obamacare thread. He's not interested in anything you have to say except as a straight for a lame joke.

And was also genuinely surprised that there are people who don't have 5k in the bank.

That assumes you paid for more than 40 years by the time it happened. And that you've saved $5,000, or be prepared to pay significantly more than $10 a month on interest.

Well who doesn't have $5,000 saved up?

[Mkuki]

I freaking live in ye' olde Idaho.

It becomes acceptable if those who use it,pay for it.

Do you pay for the interstate highways that cross your State? Or do my tax dollars help pay for your highways?

Given that Michigan never gets back what we give the Federal government, dollar for dollar, while Idaho gets back more from the Federal government than it pays in, I'm going to take a chance and say that I pay for your fucking highways, as well as the mass transit in my own State. So as far as I'm concerned, you've got no basis whatsoever to bitch about mass transit.

I mean, why in the fuck should I give you all my money? Don't I get a little to keep for my own needs?!? Or did someone die and make you King?

This is the problem I have with conservatives: They refuse to accept that we're all in this together.

It reminds me of the fabricated controversy surrounding this video from Melissa Harris-Perry.

[Frisivisia]

Do you pay for the interstate highways that cross your State? Or do my tax dollars help pay for your highways?

Given that Michigan never gets back what we give the Federal government, dollar for dollar, while Idaho gets back more from the Federal government than it pays in, I'm going to take a chance and say that I pay for your fucking highways, as well as the mass transit in my own State. So as far as I'm concerned, you've got no basis whatsoever to bitch about mass transit.

I mean, why in the fuck should I give you all my money? Don't I get a little to keep for my own needs?!? Or did someone die and make you King?

This is the problem I have with conservatives: They refuse to accept that we're all in this together.

It reminds me of the fabricated controversy surrounding this video from Melissa Harris-Perry.

Don't you know that believing that children are members of a community rather than only property of their parents is COMMUNISM?

[Genivaria]

Do you pay for the interstate highways that cross your State? Or do my tax dollars help pay for your highways?

Given that Michigan never gets back what we give the Federal government, dollar for dollar, while Idaho gets back more from the Federal government than it pays in, I'm going to take a chance and say that I pay for your fucking highways, as well as the mass transit in my own State. So as far as I'm concerned, you've got no basis whatsoever to bitch about mass transit.

I mean, why in the fuck should I give you all my money? Don't I get a little to keep for my own needs?!? Or did someone die and make you King?

This is the problem I have with conservatives: They refuse to accept that we're all in this together.

It reminds me of the fabricated controversy surrounding this video from Melissa Harris-Perry.

I agree entirely with this notion, the child of one of my fellow millennial might be running for office some day, that concerns me.

[Mkuki]

It reminds me of the fabricated controversy surrounding this video from Melissa Harris-Perry.

Don't you know that believing that children are members of a community rather than only property of their parents is COMMUNISM?

I know, but who said I wasn't a communist?

[Alien Space Bats]

<continued from previous post>

Finally, there are serious questions as to whether or not the Republicans' desired (if unstated) end result — the effective "conversion" of the Latino voting bloc into an ancillary to the GOP's white majority voter base — is even possible, given the nature of that Latino vote. Republicans like to characterize Latinos as "socially conservative" voters, and speak of a "natural fit" between them and the Party's white rural base. The problem with this assessment is that it ignores the way religion plays out within the American political arena: Specifically, it pretends that there is no essential difference between Protestants (who make up the bulk of the GOP's base) and Catholics (who comprise an overwhelming percentage of the Latino population).

Let's continue this line of thought: The Republican base is, of course, the white vote; but the white vote is not monolithic. Consider the following table:

Demographic Group	Percentage of Electorate	2012 Republican Vote	2012 Democratic Vote	Percentage Spread
White Protestants	39%	69%	30%	R+39
White Catholics	18%	59%	40%	R+19

As you can see, Republicans did a full 20 points better among white Protestants than they did amomg white Catholics.

The numbers get even more interesting when you break Protestants down into so-called "evangelicals" (a/k/a "Born Again" Protestants) and "non-evangelicals" (a/k/a "Mainline" Protestants:

Demographic Group	Percentage of Electorate	2012 Republican Vote	2012 Democratic Vote	Percentage Spread
White Evangelical Protestants	23%	79%	20%	R+59
White Mainline Protestants	16%	54%	44%	R+10
White Catholics	18%	59%	40%	R+19

This breakdown of the white Christian vote makes several things abundantly clear: First, the real heart of the Republican Party isn't the white Protestant vote; it's the white "evangelical" vote. That one segment of the electorate cast a whopping 43.0% of all of the votes Mitt Romney garnered in the last election, and overall they moved the popular vote 14.8% towards the Republicans in 2012. Nor was this a new phenomenon; here are the corresponding numbers from 2008:

Demographic Group	Percentage of Electorate	2008 Republican Vote	2008 Democratic Vote	Percentage Spread
White Evangelical Protestants	23%	73%	26%	R+47
White Mainline Protestants	19%	55%	44%	R+11
White Catholics	19%	52%	47%	R+5

In 2008, white evangelicals accounted for 42.2% of John McCain's vote total; collectively, they moved the popular vote 13.0% towards the Republicans that year.

And looking back further, we can see that the pattern even predates Barack Obama's appearance on the National scene:

Demographic Group	Percentage of Electorate	2004 Republican Vote	2004 Democratic Vote	Percentage Spread
White Evangelical Protestants	21%	79%	21%	R+58
White Mainline Protestants	20%	55%	44%	R+11
White Catholics	20%	56%	43%	R+13

White evangelical Protestants accounted for 35.4% of George W. Bush's vote total; collectively, they swung the popular vote 13.1% towards the Republicans in 2004 — far more than President Bush's margin of victory in that election.

All in all, those who insist that the GOP needs to "lose" the evangelical vote are asking it to commit electoral suicide; it would be akin to asking Democrats to "lose" the black vote.

In fact...

Demographic Group	Percentage of Electorate	2008 Republican Vote	2008 Democratic Vote	Percentage Spread
African-Americans	13%	4%	95%	D+91

Demographic Group	Percentage of Electorate	2012 Republican Vote	2012 Democratic Vote	Percentage Spread
African-Americans	13%	6%	93%	D+87

In 2008, blacks cast 23.4% of all votes for Barack Obama, and blacks collectively moved the popular vote 11.8% towards the Democrats; in 2012, they cast 23.7% of all votes and collectively moved the popular vote 11.3% towards the Democrats; so telling the GOP to "lose" the white evangelical vote would actually be considerably worse than telling blacks to abandon the black vote, relatively speaking.

IOW, it ain't gonna happen.

But getting back to the bigger picture, we would do well to understand why white evangelical Protestants are currently voting 40 points (or more) to the right of white Catholics (and have been since 2004); by extension, we would also do well to understand why "Mainline" Protestants seem locked into a fairly consistent pattern of voting Republican (but by only something like a 10 point margin). Understanding these things will matter when it comes to predicting future voting behavior on the part of Latinos.

The reason that white "Mainline" Protestants tend to be more moderate in their political disposition is because the "Mainline" Protestant churches tend to be personally conservative on lifestyle issues but nonetheless more socially tolerant (eg., "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I am not willing to see it outlawed"), more focused on personal salvation (rather than some notion of collective salvation on a National scale), more ecumenical in their operation, and deeply committed to social justice as a consequence of their embrace of the Social Gospel.

This last point cannot be too strongly stressed: Modern conservatives, rewriting history, like to pretend that the Progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th Century was the bastard child of Karl Marx and John Dewey; yet the truth is that progressivism largely came out of the churches. There's a reason, after all, why progressive politics, womens' suffrage, and prohibition all crested at the same moment in history...

In contrast, many evangelical Protestants embrace an entirely different set of values. Although Prosperity Theology is generally rejected by most church leaders within the evangelical movement (such as the late Jerry Fallwell, to cite just one example), a surprising number of evangelicals (polls suggest more than one in three) embrace it. This doctrine teaches that God rewards faith with prosperity in the here and now; it is easy to move from such a belief to the presumption that the poor are poor because they are sinners, unworthy in the eyes of God. Likewise, it is easy for people who embrace such a belief to see the wealthy (and especially those among the wealthy who profess Christian faith [regardless of whether they walk their talk with good deeds]) as virtuous and beloved of God. It's a theology that aligns the believer with the rich and against the poor — and thus naturally inclines those who embrace it towards economic and political conservatism.

Equally popular among evangelicals is Dominionist thinking, which almost goes hand in hand with Prosperity Theology: A God who rewards his faithful with wealth in the here and now can be expected — especially when the Old Testament record is consulted in support of this premise — to reward the Nation that espouses his faith and makes God's law its own; likewise, the Nation that entertains sinfulness can expect to face God's wrath and punishment. Such views reinforce the idea that evangelical Christians must take the reins of power and govern America as a Christian Nation in order to enjoy God's favor and not suffer retaliation at His hands.

Which leads us to ask: How do Catholics feel about these things?

The answer is that they stand somewhere in between the "Mainline" Protestant churches, sharing with them support for the idea of social justice as an affirmative expression of Christian feeling, while sharing with evangelical Protestants a general opposition to practices that the Church condemns as sinful.

This is the central problem that conservative evangelicals face in viewing Catholics: They see fellow Christians whose church opposes gay marriage, sexual promiscuity, abortion, and birth control; this leads them to expect that Catholics will be wholly on their side politically. What they don't see is a Church that has loudly and repeatedly condemned the excessive materialism and perceived economic injustice of modern capitalism; they forget that every Pope since John Paul II has railed against the very same economic system modern Republicans endorse as perfect, and that Catholic social teaching has much more in common with "Mainline" Protestantism's Social Gospel than anything the right has ever cooked up.

And therein lies the problem: If Latinos are, as Republicans like to see them, good and pious Catholics, then can they really be expected to ally themselves unhesitatingly with the GOP on the basis of "family values" alone, and to ignore the Party's embrace of wealth as God's bounty given to the faithful, and its embrace of the wealthy as Promethean heroes beloved of Rand and God alike?

Or are they going to be forever torn between their social conservatism and the Church's call for a just society, in which workers earn fair wages, in which the poor are fed and treated with dignity, and in which society pursues collective efforts for the common good, rather than letting the rich and powerful off with and wink and a nod, or even openly extolling self-aggrandizement as an expression of God's love and Man's highest purpose?

Economically, the Democratic Party has more than enough basis to pull upon the hearts of Catholics, whether they be white or Latino; when Democrats say that a Nation's greatness can be seen in the way that it treats its humblest residents, it is singing backup harmony to a song that Popes have been singing for years — and that's nothing to be sneezed at.

On that basis alone, there is quite a lot of reason to doubt that Latinos will ever be a solid part of some future Republican political coalition that will lead them to National electoral success. To be sure, if Latinos are allowed to become a part of the mainstream, then eventually more of them will vote Republican (if only because more of them will become wealthy, and wealthy people tend to prefer the GOP); and the social issues will always be something of a string that Republicans can pull on when in dire straits. But the overall Latino vote will be up for grabs, with Democrats having as much of a chance of winning it as Republicans do (and, at least as long as Latinos remain below the Nation's average when it comes to income, wealth, and social standing, probably a much, much better chance — at least through the short haul).

<more to come>

---

FOOTNOTE: Not all evangelicals are ultra-conservative. Recent right-wing blogs reacted in horror to polling data suggesting that as many as six million American evangelicals voted for Barack Obama (that's implicit in the numbers above: Democrats have enjoyed the support of 20-25% of all self-identified "Born Again" Christians since Edison Research first began following said group's voting habits back in 2004); many went so far as to assert that no true "Born Again" Christian could ever vote Democratic, let alone for [Strike=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Warren]the Antichrist[/Strike] Barack Obama.

Well, if you don't know who he is, you should check out Rick Warren of California's Saddleback Church; or, alternately, you can do some digging into the Assemblies of God. Both provide interesting examples of what happens when evangelicals embrace the Social Gospel and take it to heart; what you end up with are deeply religious voters who feel deeply inclined to vote Republican on moral issues, but then get turned off by climate science denial, the GOP's Randian "makers vs. takers" narrative, and its absolute willingness to die on whatever regulatory or tax hill its rich donors demand of it.

This is exactly the same problem Latino voters are going to have with any future GOP outreach: Real Christians can't be faithful to Christ's teaching and despise the poor. Until or unless the GOP is willing to throw its whole "blame the poor" shtick overboard and actually start trying to think of ways to make life better for those who need help, it's going to continue to depend on a heretical interpretation the Gospels in order to win the hearts and minds of Christian voters.

[Blakk Metal]

Stop giving a fuck and nominate Pete Wilson. It will serve as a good test of whether your social conservatism or your racism lost you the election.

[Hurdegaryp]

Stop giving a fuck and nominate Pete Wilson. It will serve as a good test of whether your social conservatism or your racism lost you the election.

Would that be the same Pete Wilson as featured in the Brujeria song "Raza Odiada (Pito Wilson)"?

[Ashmoria]

Stop giving a fuck and nominate Pete Wilson. It will serve as a good test of whether your social conservatism or your racism lost you the election.

he's 80 friggin' years old. I don't think so.

[Mkuki]

Stop giving a fuck and nominate Pete Wilson. It will serve as a good test of whether your social conservatism or your racism lost you the election.

Who's Pete Wilson?

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

Stop giving a fuck and nominate Pete Wilson. It will serve as a good test of whether your social conservatism or your racism lost you the election.

Who's Pete Wilson?

Republican Governor of California, widely considered responsible for the party's implosion in that state for shoving through Prop 187, which was basically a giant FUCK YOU to all non-whites in Cali.

[Mkuki]

Who's Pete Wilson?

Republican Governor of California, widely considered responsible for the party's implosion in that state for shoving through Prop 187, which was basically a giant FUCK YOU to all non-whites in Cali.

Doesn't sound like a fun guy.

California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal aliens from using health care, public education, and other social services in the U.S. State of California.

Holy shit!

[Wamitoria]

Republican Governor of California, widely considered responsible for the party's implosion in that state for shoving through Prop 187, which was basically a giant FUCK YOU to all non-whites in Cali.

Doesn't sound like a fun guy.

California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal aliens from using health care, public education, and other social services in the U.S. State of California.

Holy shit!

And that's why the Democratic Party of California has a stranglehold on that state's politics and probably will retain that control for quite some time.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Who's Pete Wilson?

Republican Governor of California, widely considered responsible for the party's implosion in that state for shoving through Prop 187, which was basically a giant FUCK YOU to all non-whites in Cali.

He also used to be the mayor of my hometown of San Diego. Strangely enough, when he presided over a city where Latinos were a huge voting bloc, he barely made a peep about the issue. It was only once he hit the state level that he turned into such a pendejo.

[Phocidaea]

Republican path to "victory": a memo from the party office.

1. Alienate as many racial minority and female voters as possible by any means, because women and darkies are too dumb to vote anyway.
2. Refer to near-majority of Americans as moochers, automatically setting your share of the vote at 53% at very highest, because most of those people are minorities who are, as stated above, too dumb to vote.
3. Instead of appealing to moderate swing voters, go as far right as realistically possible, because otherwise the righties might recognize that the Constitution party exists.
4. Make tactless comments alleging the "legitimacy" of certain rapes.
5. Keep firm conservative stance on all social issues, to spread awareness of another third party (the Libertarians).
6. When questioned on position toward a group, reply that you employed/worked with "binders full" of them. Guilty white liberals dig that.
7. Refuse to show tax returns for as long as possible, because it's probably better than revealing you didn't pay enough.

[Blakk Metal]

Stop giving a fuck and nominate Pete Wilson. It will serve as a good test of whether your social conservatism or your racism lost you the election.

Would that be the same Pete Wilson as featured in the Brujeria song "Raza Odiada (Pito Wilson)"?

Yes.

Stop giving a fuck and nominate Pete Wilson. It will serve as a good test of whether your social conservatism or your racism lost you the election.

he's 80 friggin' years old. I don't think so.

79, according to google.

[Scholencia]

So, NSGers, here's the question: If you were a Republican strategist, what would you do in order to rebuild the party, and to win elections (particularly the Presidency) in the future?

Invite the army and make a coup.

[Farnhamia]

So, NSGers, here's the question: If you were a Republican strategist, what would you do in order to rebuild the party, and to win elections (particularly the Presidency) in the future?

Invite the army and make a coup.

The Armed Forces know better.

[4years]

Every single proposal here is literally "turn Republicans into Democrats." Seriously, if these proposals would be accepted, what would be the difference between Democrats and Republicans?

What's the difference between Republicans and Democracts now?

And the Republican Pashto victory can be summed up in three words: gerrymandering, election fraud

[Hornesia]

Honestly, the only way out for the GOP is fiscally conservative libertarianism.

[Wikkiwallana]

Honestly, the only way out for the GOP is fiscally conservative libertarianism.

Because it's working so well for the Libertarian party…

[Hornesia]

Honestly, the only way out for the GOP is fiscally conservative libertarianism.

Because it's working so well for the Libertarian party…

Libertarian party was never one of the two majors, which is why it's lacking.

[Genivaria]

Every single proposal here is literally "turn Republicans into Democrats." Seriously, if these proposals would be accepted, what would be the difference between Democrats and Republicans?

What's the difference between Republicans and Democracts now?

And the Republican Pashto victory can be summed up in three words: gerrymandering, election fraud

A great fucking amount.

[Wikkiwallana]

Because it's working so well for the Libertarian party…

Libertarian party was never one of the two majors, which is why it's lacking.

That, and people hate its message.