What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has stated that the GOP is in a demographic death spiral due to lackluster support for immigration reform leading to poor approval ratings among Latino voters. I believe that he's right, but that he's missing a larger picture; namely that the GOP has encountered a perfect storm of issues over the past several years, with their base turning parasitic, and their supposed leaders losing control of the party.

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? This is one of my favorite games to play as a Democrat, as it forces me to completely shift my perspective. My thoughts?

1-Drop any potential talk about tax cuts for the upper class, or even putting up anything but a symbolic fight against minor hikes. This is what happens during economic downturns. The economy is slowly improving, so refocus the rhetoric on "streamlining regulations" and "removing red tape" for small businesses. Once the economy improves to a greater degree, take up the tax cut banner again.

2-When Graham's right, he's right. Path to citizenship for undocumented aliens currently here, and talk up stronger border security. Most of the GOP seems to already be on board with this.

3-Kick the ball down the field on foreign policy. There hasn't been a single issue in that area that's been a winner for the GOP for about a decade, despite their attempts to turn Benghazi into a thing. Whether they're right or not, it's a dud topic, and there's no traction to be gained there.

4-Shift focus to marijuana as being up to the states to decide. Promote education and rehabilitation efforts regarding drug users, combined with get tough rhetoric regarding dealers.

5-This is going to be a tough one, and it's going to hurt for a while: do to the Tea Party what the Democrats did to the Dixiecrats. Their brand of anti-intellectualism may appeal to part of the base, but it's hurting the party nationally, and the people who currently make up these organizations are on the wrong side of history.

Suggestions? Thoughts?

1. Raising taxes in an economic downturn on anyone (not just the 'greedy' rich... who are only greedy because they don't support the Democrats), goes against common sense knowledge of economics. How about we reform the system during the downturn and let it work itself out from there? Cutting taxes is one thing but raising them is another.

2. Didn't work in '86 or any other time in recent history for that matter, why on Earth would it work now? How about we secure the border now and then work on the whole 'pathway' later? There have been continued promises to 'secure the border' for amnesty with no work in the long run on security and more people getting a free pass. Border Security is first, as it is a CONSTITUTIONAL obligation of the Federal government to protect the States from invasion (yes, it's an unarmed invasion nonetheless.) Besides, why are we only focusing on the Hispanic aspect of the illegal immigrant influx? Immigrants come from all over but yet we're focused on ONE ethnicity! Isn't that against the whole aspect of 'equality'?

3. The thing is that the Democrats were always keen on turning Bush's international or diplomatic blunders into 'things'. It's just a back and forth between two sides of the same card. (Not just talking about the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars).

4. That's a Libertarian philosophy that the establishment types (on both sides) won't support because of the power and money the 'War on Drugs' brings. Honestly, a major reform in our drug policies would actually be more beneficial and would eliminate a lot of internal issues with criminals and drug users.

5. It's not the Tea Party hurting the Republican party nationally, in fact, the establishment did themselves wonders by rejecting the Libertarian and youth vote (via Ron Paul and Gary Johnson). They are abandoning their base and trying to win over a base that looks to the Democrats because they know they can get more from them (at the taxpayer, and by extension, legal immigrants', expense). If you looked on the state and local levels, the Tea Party won a lot in regards to those levels. Sure the national level is really important, but without the states and localities supporting the leviathan, you'll have major support issues. Federalism was supposed to allow more power to more local levels of government with the Fed actually having the least amount.

1. History proves you wrong. And it's only the GOP who constantly talk about raising taxes on the 'greedy' rich. Democrats talk about raising taxes on top earners.

2. History again proves you wrong. There was a significant boost in support for the GOP among Latinos when the '86 amnesty was passed.

3. That doesn't actually contradict my point.

4. Agreed.

5. Which base do you think they're trying to go after? What I've seen is a hell of a lot of Tea Party pandering over the past two cycles, though it's admittedly beginning to lessen.

[Maurepas]

In that case I'm not sure there's anything they can do. I present it as an option because I think it is their best bet.

The problem here is, if we're taking the measure of votes as you are, all they really could do is become Democrats, because other than the things I've presented, there's not really a whole lot left that they could do to win back lost ground. At least without disavowing their current agenda almost entirely.

Out of curiosity, what would you do?

If I were in a position of some authority within the modern GOP, I would do one thing which the GOP has done poorly in recent years (sometimes to great success) and break openly vocal ranks with the TEA Party and the militant christian right.

The bulk of the GOP has let the agenda be set by increasingly fringe candidates - and the current libertarian summer is no different - it's extremists attempting to redefine where the party line is. As I said earlier, look at Eisenhower's presidency, and compare it to the modern GOP. Hell, compare it to the modern democrats.

The GOP needs to stop 'acid testing' party members with increasingly fringe tests of ideological purity, and make a return to being a party that has a big tent - a place that can accommodate different political ideas under one umbrella. The democrats are currently better at doing this - although it's a double-edged sword, because it means you don't get slavish obedience on party lines.

You see, while I agree with all of that, and could even see myself supporting an Eisenhower-ideology led party, I just don't think the GOP or even the Dems have it in them to support the things Eisenhower supported.

I mean hell, like you say, compare it even to modern democrats. I mean, they're calling Obama a Socialist, just imagine how bad they'd shit themselves if he was setting up the kind of government Eisenhower had,

[Wikkiwallana]

Border Security is first, as it is a CONSTITUTIONAL obligation of the Federal government to protect the States from invasion (yes, it's an unarmed invasion nonetheless.)

Nonsense.

Federalism was supposed to allow more power to more local levels of government with the Fed actually having the least amount.

No, that's Confederalism. Federalism is just the opposite. That's why it's called "Federalism", for pity's sake.

Edit: Can I please make one post tonight without a typo in it? Is that so much to ask?

[Death Metal]

Scorched earth is all they have.

Oh, and nipping this in the bud: Tea party muppet Marco Rubio is hated by Hispanics. They'd rather have Bush 43 back than Rubio in power. Thinking that Rubio is going to win the Hispanic vote for the GOP is sheer idiocy. He's an Uncle Tomas in their eyes... which is pretty much what he is in the end.

[Death Metal]

1. Disassociate with the teatards, and get behind a good sane candidate (like say Christi or Rubio), the GOP needs a face of the party to get out there, and those two would be great starts.
2. Push for states rights, but keep to staying socially centre-right for national reform.
3. Compromise, and force dems to compromise too.
4. Aim for deregulation and simplification of government beuracracy.
5. Build a fence, and crack down on illegals while simplifying path to citizenship
6. Call for buisness tax cuts/exemptions, give companies incentives to hire here.
7. Pull out of middle east while strengthening resolve (not military numbers) in Asia, crack down on China for the trade abuse and cyberwarfare.

1. Rubio is dogshit and a teabagger, Christie will get thrown under the bus. There are no sane candidates to get behind.
2.States Rights don't exist. Read 9 and 10 again. People have rights, States have limited powers. "States Rights" has been proven as an excuse for states to do oppressive things to their citizens (some of which Unconstitutional, like establishing a religion). It's an immediate red flag for civil rights-minded voters.
3. Yeah, good luck with that. The GOP by way of the CPAC conventions have made it clear that compromise is not going to happen.
4. Deregulation is what caused the economy to be shit in the first place. There are a few redundancies that can be done away with.
5. Not only would this be an economic disaster, but pushing the fence alienates minority voters.
6. Tax cuts don't help the economy during a slump. They should only be done during a boom, and never permanenced.
7. Zero sum game there as the Dems will be pushing for the same thing. It's the only reasonable point of the bunch, but you'll need something more to entice voters.

[Xsyne]

To be entirely honest, I'd like to see both the Republican and Democratic Parties implode and be replaced by, like, six or seven others. What we REALLY need in this damn country, other than proper public transit, the elimination of bribery and corruption, and a revamping of the education system, is an actual multiparty democracy like they have in European countries.

Unfortunately our election system makes two parties the only stable division. It would be nice to switch to something like the french point system.

I'd rather just go to an instant run-off system. The French system, while better than our system, is still vulnerable to vote splitting. And when the side of the political aisle with which I am most sympathetic has a problem with schisms, vote splitting is a somewhat important consideration.

[Alien Space Bats]

<continued from previous post>

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).

I could go further that this, if I wanted to: I could point out that, even though Latinos often describe themselves as conservative...



... They have attitudes towards the role of government in society that are diametrically at odds with Republican ideology.



Likewise, the handles that Republicans believe they will have in trying to win the Latino vote are not only undermined by Latino support for an activist government committed to social justice, but — worse still if you're a Republican — those handles are likely to erode over time:





As the foregoing charts show, Latino attitudes towards abortion and homosexuality — the two hottest "moral" issues Republicans have — generally converge on those of society as a whole within three generations. Indeed, in the case of homosexuality, second- and third-generation Latinos are actually more liberal than the general populace, suggesting that Republicans are going to find whatever small traction they may now enjoy when it comes to "family values" evaporating well before Latinos become acclimated enough within American society to start voting the same way as whites do now.

There is one — and precisely one — area where Republicans might have some purchase going forward: Latinos seem to have a greater degree of faith in the American dream and the value of hard work than most Americans.



This suggests that the GOP might be able to appeal to them as a group on the basis of a platform of expanding economic opportunity. That said, we have to remember that Latinos as a group have come to America from countries where powerful forces have worked for generations to deprive the lower social classes of opportunity, and they embrace a religious tradition that does not blame the poor for being poor. Thus, Republicans cannot simply read Latinos' belief in the power of hard work as a ready willingness to accept their characterization of America as a Nation where debauched and sinful "takers" are trying to destroy America's morally upright and hard-working "makers"; their history, experience, and faith all tell them that the rich and powerful can "take" from the hard-working "poor" just as easily (and maybe more easily) than the "moochers" and "looters" can steal from God's plutocratic heroes. Prosperity theology isn't going to go far among people whose parents have recently come from a part of the world where Liberation theology (even if frowned upon by the Church proper) is a genuine political force.

That said, I just don't see a lot of short-term potential here — and what the GOP needs to avoid disaster is a fast turnaround. It's going to take a generation or more for Latinos to become well-enough assimilated into the general population to effectively be treated as "white", and even as "white" voters, they're never going to be as reliable as white evangelicals; rather, they're going to end up becoming an adjunct to the Catholic vote, which has historically been a bone of contention between the two Parties for decades. Pursing the Latino vote, then, is not a winning strategy for Republicans; it's a survival strategy, and one that only works by keeping them barely alive until they are competitive again someday — if they're lucky.

That's why the black vote is the real prize.

Take a look at the following table:

Year	Republican Share of Black Vote	Democratic Share of Black Vote	Republican Share of Total 2012 Vote	Democratic Share of Total 2012 Vote
2012	6%	93%	47%	51%
1960	32%	68%	51%*	48%*

*Recalculated 2012 result based on indicated vote split within the black electorate.

IOW, if Mitt Romney had been able to do as well among black voters as Richard Nixon did in 1960 — if he'd been able to pull in just 32% of the black vote — he'd have won the popular vote by a solid 3%, and carried the Electoral College by a 286-252 count (flipping Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania [this last by a whisker]).

So the question then becomes: Does the GOP have a way to woo and win at least a third of the Nation's black vote?

Before we can answer that question, we should try to figure out just where Republicans currently stand in the eyes of African-Americans. The following chart might help:

Year	Republican Share of Final Gallup Poll	Democratic Share of Final Gallup Poll	Republican Share of Black Vote	Democratic Share of Black Vote
1952	21	79	*	*
1956	39	61	*	*
1960	32	68	*	*
1964	6	94	*	*
1968	12	85	*	*
1972	13	87	18	82
1976	15	85	16	83
1980	10	86	11	85
1984	13	87	9	90
1988	12	88	12	86
1992	9	88	10	83
1996	2	96	12	84
2000	3	95	8	90
2004	7	93	11	88
2008	1	99	4	95
2012	5	90	6	93

*No exit polling data available.

What we see is a steady erosion of Republican support among black voters dating back to 1964, when Barry Goldwater adopted a "States' Rights" platform in opposition to then-President Lyndon Johnson's efforts to end segregation in the South. Both anecdotally and statistically, opposition to African-American civil rights on the part of the head of the Republican ticket (combined with strong support for the same by Democratic Presidents of the day) did lasting damage to GOP hopes among black voters (and did so in spite of the fact that Republican legislators in Congress supported the major civil rights legislation of the day, and did so to an even greater extent than their Democratic counterparts [many of whom were, in fact, among the strongest opponents of such measures]). Subsequent Republican Administrations in the late 1960's and early 1970's failed to completely repair the damage during their time in office (before Carter took over in 1977), and then things began to deteriorate steadily as one Republican Presidential candidate after another turned to race-baiting tactics ("welfare queens", Willie Horton, race-based attacks on Obama [eg., depictions of him as a "foreigner" and a "food stamp" President]) in an effort to consolidate their position among white voters.

To be sure, those race-baiting tactics once worked, and worked pretty well at that; after all, the mathematics of the strategy favored Republicans as long as the electorate remained overwhelming white: Throw blacks under the bus — guaranteeing Democrats a near-totality of the African-American vote — in exchange for the lion's share of non-Hispanic white vote. This table demonstrates the math quite well:

Demographic Group	Share of the Electorate	Republican Share of the Group Vote	Democratic Share of the Group Vote	Republican Share of the Total Vote*	Democratic Share of the Total Vote**
Non-Hispanic Whites	75%	60%	40%	45%	30%
Minorities	25%	20%	80%	5%	20%
Total Vote	100%	-	-	50%	50%

*Share of the Electorate × Republican Share of the Group Vote.
**Share of the Electorate × Democratic Share of the Group Vote.

In theory, so long as Republicans can win at least 60% of the white vote while losing no more than 80% of the minority vote to the Democrats (and as long as the white vote constitutes at least 75% of the electorate), they should be able to win using this approach. The problem for them going forward, however, is that the minority share of the total vote is growing and can no longer be counted on to remain below 25% (in 2012, minorities cast 26.3% of the total vote, up from 23.7% in 2008; Republicans strategists spent the final months of the 2012 campaign insisting that this would not happen, that 2008 was a "fluke", and that minority voting would "return" to its "historical" [meaning 2004 and earlier] level [it was 20.8% in 2004 and 19.3% in 2000], thus yielding Mitt Romney a landslide victory; as we all know, this is not what happened); worse, still, Republican support among minorities is eroding, and the GOP can no longer be expected to hold Democrats to less than 80% of the minority vote (Obama beat Romney 81-18 among minority voters; four years earlier, he beat McCain 80-18 among these same voters; by way of comparison, Kerry only beat Bush by 70-28 among minority voters in 2004); and (finally) their ability to consistently win over 60% of the white vote remains questionable on a year-to-year basis (Romney beat Obama 59-39 among white voters in 2012 — the best performance of any Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan; but McCain only managed to beat Obama by 55-43 among these same voters in 2008; and even George W. Bush only managed to beat John Kerry by a 58-41 margin among white voters four years before that, in 2004).

Now, there are those who would double down on that last point, and seek to play upon white fears of their shrinking role within the overall National electorate to push for even greater super-majorities among whites. If Latinos and Asians can break towards the Democrats by 65-35 or 75-25 margins (and, for the moment, let's not even think about the 90-10 or 95-5 margins by which black voters favor Democrats), then surely white politicians who make outright appeals to racism engage in sophisticated efforts at mobilizing such voters through "identity politics" can do the same, right?

Maybe not. A State-by-State analysis of the white vote suggests that Romney's record performance among non-Hispanic white voters was largely due to massive super-majorities in the Deep South:

State	Democratic Share of the Non-Hispanic White Vote	GOP Won?
MS	10.0%	X
LA	10.5%	X
AL	13.3%	X
GA	14.5%	X
OK	14.8%	X
UT	16.7%	X
SC	19.7%	X
AR	21.8%	X
WY	23.0%	X
TX	23.4%	X
TN	24.3%	X
AK	24.5%	X
ID	27.7%	X
KS	29.4%	X
NC	30.8%	X
NE	31.0%	X
KY	31.1%	X
AZ	31.4%	X
WV	31.7%	X
SD	34.0%	X
VA	34.4%
ND	34.7%	X
MO	34.8%	X
IN	36.1%	X
FL	37.4%
NV	37.8%
MT	38.0%	X
OH	41.8%
NM	42.2%
MD	42.6%
PA	44.3%
CO	44.5%
MI	44.8%
CA	45.1%
DE	45.6%
IL	45.8%
NJ	46.2%
MN	48.0%
WI	48.0%
WA	48.2%
IA	49.2%
OR	49.4%
NH	50.3%
CT	51.8%
NY	51.9%
HI	53.5%
ME	54.8%
MA	55.9%
RI	58.9%
VT	66.4%

This is pretty damning data from the standpoint of critiquing current Republican strategy: Wherever Obama won 40% or more of the white vote, he won the State in question, along with its Electoral Votes; indeed, except for Montana (whose minority population cast just 10.2% of the total vote in 2012), he won every State where his share of the white vote exceeded just 37%. Obama won in yet another State with only 34.4% of the white vote (Virginia) thanks to that State's larger-than-average minority vote (31.4%); still more ominously (for Republicans) was the fact that he almost won in North Carolina (with just 30.8%), thanks to that State having almost the same size minority vote as Virginia (31.5%). Given that at least six other Romney States have the same (or higher) minority population than North Carolina and Virginia (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina), the GOP may already be pushing up against the limits of what can be done through "identity politics"; at the very least, such tactics have a long way to go before they can help the party break into "deep blue" territory and threaten to take the White House away from the Democrats.

<more to come>

[Blakk Metal]

They need to follow the lead of Northeastern Western Republicans, who are usually right wing economically but more moderate socially.

Corrected.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Any moderate candidate will be voted out in the primaries. So the only logical option is to either disband, or to accept defeat for the next ten years.

[Blakk Metal]

Republicans, I dare you to turn California into a swing state.

[Ponderosa]

Republicans, I dare you to turn California into a swing state.

That would be cool, but how?

[Blakk Metal]

Republicans, I dare you to turn California into a swing state.

That would be cool, but how?

Wash off the Pete Wilson-itude.

[Virabia]

There is not a path to Republican Victory. Not one that doesn't involve being based in reality (which they... are not).

[Regnum Dominae]

There is not a path to Republican Victory.

Wrong.

[AiliailiA]

Er, I was wrong to describe ASB's series of posts as an essay. More like a book.

Thus, Republicans cannot simply read Latinos' belief in the power of hard work as a ready willingness to accept their characterization of America as a Nation where debauched and sinful "takers" are trying to destroy America's morally upright and hard-working "takers"; their history, experience, and faith all tell them that the rich and powerful can "take" from the hard-working "poor" just as easily (and maybe more easily) than the "moochers" and "looters" can steal from God's plutocratic heroes.

And a tiny typo but in the last line, which may be all some people read:

at the very least, such tactics have a long way to go before they can help the party break into "deep blue" territory and threaten to take the White House away from the Democrats.

[Forster Keys]

Use the military to oust the democratic president on charges of voter fraud and being a godless communist. Establish martial law, deal with dangerous elements in society, then put a sympathetic general in the white house.

Well that could work.

[Virabia]

There is not a path to Republican Victory.

Wrong.

Given the current state of the party... I don't see one. They may be able to take a house of congress but the presidency... lolnope

[Surfistan]

I've seen the error of my ways by sayin they need more Pauls, they need more Rockefellers.

As in Rockefeller Republicans, and maybe let someone from the Log Cabin Republicans run to scare of the bigots.

Change the issues on marriage (as in, more LGBT positive)
Change from right wing to centre-right.
Ditch the Evangelicals or at least reeducate them.

[Greed and Death]

Let sequester create finacial crisis, blame democrats.
Make up scandals involving IRS, Drone strikes, and the like then blame the democrats.
Avoid getting caught naked with Congressional pages.

[Wikkiwallana]

Let sequester create finacial crisis, blame democrats.
Make up scandals involving IRS, Drone strikes, and the like then blame the democrats.
Avoid getting caught naked with Congressional pages.

That last one is going to be pretty damn hard.

[Alien Space Bats]

Er, I was wrong to describe ASB's series of posts as an essay. More like a book.

Thus, Republicans cannot simply read Latinos' belief in the power of hard work as a ready willingness to accept their characterization of America as a Nation where debauched and sinful "takers" are trying to destroy America's morally upright and hard-working "takers"; their history, experience, and faith all tell them that the rich and powerful can "take" from the hard-working "poor" just as easily (and maybe more easily) than the "moochers" and "looters" can steal from God's plutocratic heroes.

And a tiny typo but in the last line, which may be all some people read:

at the very least, such tactics have a long way to go before they can help the party break into "deep blue" territory and threaten to take the White House away from the Democrats.

You're hired as my editor!

[Moralem Populi]

In my opinion, the Democratic Party and Republican Party should have to compete with the Libertarians, Greens, and other political parties. Make it harder for both parties.

You could make the argument that the Electoral College forces the 2 party system on us. Even then, why aren't that many 3rd parties elected to the cities, States, and Congress?

[Mkuki]

In my opinion, the Democratic Party and Republican Party should have to compete with the Libertarians, Greens, and other political parties. Make it harder for both parties.

You could make the argument that the Electoral College forces the 2 party system on us. Even then, why aren't that many 3rd parties elected to the cities, States, and Congress?

Money. The two main tents have the money to run at such a scale. Third parties don't have that kind of cash for sustained activity.

[Aldheim]

In my opinion, the Democratic Party and Republican Party should have to compete with the Libertarians, Greens, and other political parties. Make it harder for both parties.

You could make the argument that the Electoral College forces the 2 party system on us. Even then, why aren't that many 3rd parties elected to the cities, States, and Congress?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

[Asuiop]

The path to victory? Work to stop this homo-phobic rich rascist white guy stereotype created by the liberals. Also, it wouldn't hurt to focus a little less on banning gay marriage and much much more on the economy. The economic principals are the strongest part. However, we need to get rid of this trickle-down economic view which has formed and return to the truly free market they supported.