What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[Wikkiwallana]

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.

Much of it to do with fucking. And fucking over.

[4years]

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.

A small amount on social issues, nothing on economic issues.

[4years]

A great fucking amount.

Much of it to do with fucking. And fucking over.

The Republicans: "let's fuck over the poor and minorities while waging a war an woman"
The Democrats: "let's fuck over the poor"
Great choice.

[Hornesia]

Much of it to do with fucking. And fucking over.

The Republicans: "let's fuck over the poor and minorities while waging a war an woman"
The Democrats: "let's fuck over the poor"
Great choice.

Hah. There is no war on women. I have a binder full of them to prove it.

[Dilange]

Dissolve.

[Dakini]

I have very few friends my age (I'm almost 30) who have $5000 or more saved up. I also have some friends who, if not for universal health care and special government drug plans to supplement private insurance for low income earners, would be in giant piles of debt.

hmm.......are you sure about that?

Am I sure that my friend whose wife spent a year with severe pain and no diagnosis involving multiple trips to the emergency room (at least a few times a month) for more than a year, who currently lives paycheque-to-paycheque would be in heaping piles of debt without access to universal health care?

I mean, I'm not the gambling type, but I'd say yes.

Most of my friends are graduate students. The ones who won scholarships sometimes have some money saved up (but not always) and a lot of my friends live paycheque to paycheque. Of my friends from high school, many of them are in the same situation as far as getting by with only a few who have regular (as in full time and steady) jobs and houses and stuff.

[Avenio]

really???

i can't help but get the impression you live in a completely different world from most of the people on this forum and most of the people in america and that this probably affects your political views by a large margin

That may or may not have a whole lot to do with the fact that he's approximately 15 years old.

[Genivaria]

i can't help but get the impression you live in a completely different world from most of the people on this forum and most of the people in america and that this probably affects your political views by a large margin

That may or may not have a whole lot to do with the fact that he's approximately 15 years old.

That explains alot.

[Avenio]

That may or may not have a whole lot to do with the fact that he's approximately 15 years old.

That explains alot.

Yeah. It's easy to pontificate about the costs of the real world when the largest financial decision you've ever made was that one time you saved up some money from your summer job at McDonald's to buy an Xbox.

[The Nuclear Fist]

i can't help but get the impression you live in a completely different world from most of the people on this forum and most of the people in america and that this probably affects your political views by a large margin

That may or may not have a whole lot to do with the fact that he's approximately 15 years old.

I thought he said he was old enough to vote? Wouldn't that put him at 18?

[Regnum Dominae]

That may or may not have a whole lot to do with the fact that he's approximately 15 years old.

I thought he said he was old enough to vote? Wouldn't that put him at 18?

Vaz often confuses himself with his parents.

[Avenio]

That may or may not have a whole lot to do with the fact that he's approximately 15 years old.

I thought he said he was old enough to vote? Wouldn't that put him at 18?

I don't know. He's had about as much experience with personal finance as the average 15-year-old, though. And sounds to be just as mature as one, anyway.

[AiliailiA]

<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 ...

I'm enjoying this essay. I wonder though, whether immigrants from majority Catholic countries to the US are likely to be very religious. Just because someone ticks that box on the Census form doesn't tell us how much of a factor their religious beliefs will be in their voting behavior does it?

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>

I'm not surprised it takes a while to explain how Republicans can win the black vote

[AiliailiA]

That may or may not have a whole lot to do with the fact that he's approximately 15 years old.

I thought he said he was old enough to vote? Wouldn't that put him at 18?

In Idaho? I think so.

[AiliailiA]

... your summer job at McDonald's ...

You think?

[Vazdania]

i can't help but get the impression you live in a completely different world from most of the people on this forum and most of the people in america and that this probably affects your political views by a large margin

That may or may not have a whole lot to do with the fact that he's approximately 15 years old.

were the hell did you come up with that number? You're so off it almost makes me laugh.

[Divair]

I thought he said he was old enough to vote? Wouldn't that put him at 18?

Vaz often confuses himself with his parents.

It's funny how many people here do that.

[The Rich Port]

Vaz often confuses himself with his parents.

It's funny how many people here do that.

Because your parents always know best.

Except when they don't.

[Tlaceceyaya]

i can't help but get the impression you live in a completely different world from most of the people on this forum and most of the people in america and that this probably affects your political views by a large margin

That may or may not have a whole lot to do with the fact that he's approximately 15 years old.

Also with the fact that is parents make $850000 before taxes per year according to him.

[Divair]

That may or may not have a whole lot to do with the fact that he's approximately 15 years old.

Also with the fact that is parents make $850000 before taxes per year according to him.

Yeah? Well mine make $850001, so hah!

[Edlichbury]

That may or may not have a whole lot to do with the fact that he's approximately 15 years old.

were the hell did you come up with that number? You're so off it almost makes me laugh.

We combined your 15-year-old beliefs on the state of finances, whether or not insurance is worth it, and opinion towards the less fortunate and determined you had to be someone who has yet to enter the real world. Ergo, about 15.

[Heavenly Peace]

Respect the right of individuals to do what they wish with their own body, distance the party from the swivel-eyed cranks who do nothing but bang on about immigration, admit that the size of government in all areas needs to be drastically reduced, commit to a less aggressive foreign policy and stop pretending Jesus was an American. In short they ought to deliver a clear and coherent message that a vote for the Republican Party is a vote to keep more of your own money in your own pocket.

[Lesbia]

Most of what I've seen in this thread is just changing their party's platform to match that of the Democrats. That's the best you all have?

[The Rich Port]

Most of what I've seen in this thread is just changing their party's platform to match that of the Democrats. That's the best you all have?

To be fair, it's what lost them the election. :D

[Lesbia]

Most of what I've seen in this thread is just changing their party's platform to match that of the Democrats. That's the best you all have?

To be fair, it's what lost them the election.

And seeing as nothing all that significant has changed about the platform since 2004, it's what won them a few eight years ago.