What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[The Godly Nations]

Kick out the Tea Party and the far-right Christian Dominionists. Stop trying to push anti-science policies, and focus on sane center-right economics instead of "OBAMA IS A COMMIE!!11!!". Stop the war on non-Christians, women, gays, etc. Reform on illegal immigration and turn drugs into an issue for the states. And also offer alternatives to Democrat legislation: instead of REPEAL OBAMAKARE!!!111!! they should offer constructive alternative solutions.

Very true.

But I don't think they're in as much of a downward spiral as some would like to believe; in the UK, when the vote was given to all (or most) working class men a century or so ago, people saw it as a disaster for the Conservatives. But look who's in government now. The fact is they'll retain support because their demographics will change; while it's a convincing argument that demographics would outmanoeuvre them, reality sometimes says otherwise.

Guess who pushed for their vote- Disraeli and the Tories. He just had the good political sense to push it before the Liberals did.

[Maurepas]

The problem is, without same-sex marriage and abortion and the accompanying "social issues", they have virtually no differences from the Democrats.

Due to the fact that the Dems do exactly what I said earlier in the thread and ignore their base, they have easy retorts on taxes, regulations, etc., leaving the GOP to inevitably push the social agendas that are ridiculously unpopular among anyone who isn't an evangelical.

While in the short term, you're right the Lolbertarians aren't a majority, neither are the Dixiecrats, and you have to untie yourself from the "Southern Strategy" if you want to win, and you have to at the same time differentiate yourself from the Democratic party.

The way to do that is going to take a while, but you have to build a new brand, and part of that, I think, is looking at serious Libertarian viewpoints.

A shift towards libertarianism, I think, would be the death of the GOP. Even if it was socially and economically consistent.

Also, I disagree. While the actions may be similar once in power, philosophically the Democrats and the Republicans are very different, abortion and gay marriage aside. And during election time nobody cares about substance, they care about promises. Most think of Democrats as the party that would raise taxes if they could. And most think of the GOP as the party that would cut them if they could. How true that is is irrelevant. The same applies towards regulation and the varying views on the size and scope of the government in general.

I just don't know about that. Maybe my internet bubble is coloring my view, but outside of card-carrying members of the party I don't think people see it as so black and white. There's too much cynicism in the independent crowd that you're actually trying to attract, I would think, for that to hold true.

I could be wrong, my cynicism could be misplaced, but I'm putting my money on a consistent idea that those "in the middle" so to speak will see a bigger difference in "social issues" than any of that when they go to vote. If you get them to go to vote.

[Alien Space Bats]

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?

Don't waste time courting the Latino vote; it's the black vote you want. If that means ditching the racists, then ditch the fucking racists; they're excess baggage anyway.

Let's start with the reasons why the Latino vote will not save the GOP.

First, Republican strategists and commentators fixate on George W. Bush's 2004 performance among Latino voters (in which he managed to win 43%-45% of the vote among members of that demographic). The obvious problem with using that 2004 performance as a target is that it represents something of an historical outlier, as this table (using historical data from exit polls employed by the New York Times) will show:

Year	Contest	Latino Vote Share	Percentage Spread
1976	Richard M. Nixon* vs. George S. McGovern	35-63	D+28
1976	Gerald R. Ford* vs. James E. Carter	18-82**	D+64**
1980	Ronald W. Reagan vs. James E. Carter*	35-56	D+21
1984	Ronald W. Reagan* vs. Walter F. Mondale	37-62	D+25
1988	George H. W. Bush vs. Michael S. Dukakis	30-69	D+39
1992	George H. W. Bush* vs. William J. Clinton	25-61	D+36
1996	Robert J. Dole vs. William J. Clinton*	21-72	D+51
2000	George W. Bush vs. Albert A. Gore	35-62	D+27
2004	George W. Bush* vs. John F. Kerry	44-53	D+9
2008	John S. McCain vs. Barack H. Obama	31-67	D+36
2012	Willard M. Romney vs. Barack H. Obama*	27-71	D+44
Average	Republican vs. Democrat	31-65	D+34

*Running as the incumbent.
**The NYT data has no entry for 1976; a CBS exit poll for the same year (from the data set maintained by the University of Connecticut's Roper Center) has been used instead.

From the foregoing data, it's pretty clear that the GOP is really wishing for a lot if its goal is to try and get to 45% of the Latino vote; historically, the average gap between Democratic and Republican performance has been in the mid-to-low 30's, with the best Republican performances cracking into the 20's. This last year, none of that would have been enough: Matching John McCain's performance would have virtually no difference at all (the gap in popular vote between the two candidates would have been reduced from 3.85% to 3.05%); matching the historical average performance of GOP candidates little better (3.85% would have become 2.85%); and even matching George W. Bush's 2004 performance would not have been enough for Mitt Romney to win (granted, it would have reduced Obama's margin of victory to a scant 0.35% in the popular vote; but the only States that would have shifted allegiance in the Electoral College would have been Florida and New Mexico, and their combined 34 EV's would not have changed the outcome of the election [it would have still been a 298-240 victory for Obama], although we would have probably had to wait until morning to hear that the President had scratched out razor-thin victories in Colorado and Nevada [together, another 14 EV's] as well); long before then, however, Ohio and Virginia would have still put Barack Obama over the top). To be sure, with the passage of time, the Latino vote is going to get more and more important — and so as the Republicans certainly don't want to just write it off as a loss — but it didn't make the difference this time around, and it probably won't make be what makes the difference across the next few cycles, either.

There's a reason I make this last claim: Going into this election I believed (as did a great many other people who had actually examined the numbers) that the Latino vote was shaping up to be a "perfect storm" that might swamp Governor Romney's hopes. At the precise moment that Latinos were growing as a share of the voting electorate, Latino voter participation rates were also rising while Republican support among Latinos was tanking; and while any one of these things was bad for Republicans, all three together seemed certain to spell doom. To be sure, some of this expected synergy manifested itself: In 2008, the Latino vote swung the overall national popular vote totals by 3.24% in the Democrats' favor; in 2012, it produced a 4.40% swing (an increase of 1.16% overall relative to 2008). But Latino voter participation rates didn't rise in quite the way I'd expected them to; indeed, in 2012 they fell for the first time since the U.S. Census Bureau began tracking Hispanics in their quadrennial electoral studies back in 1996, from 49.9% to 48.0%.

To be sure, part of this drop-off can be seen as part of a larger trend: that of lower overall voter participation among the total National electorate: In 2008, 63.6% of all voting-age American citizens actually participated in that year's election, while in 2012, only 61.8% did so. This drop-off from 63.6% to 61.8% represents a relative fall of 2.9% (0.61813 ÷ 0.63640 = 0.97129; 1.00000 - 0.97129 = 0.02871, which rounds up to 0.029); if this decline were experienced across the board, we would expect to see Latino participation fall from 49.9% to 48.4%; instead, it fell all the way to 48.0%, a drop of 3.9% (0.47957 ÷ 0.49880 = 0.96155; 1.00000 - 0.96155 = 0.03854, which rounds up to 0.039). This means that the overall Latino share of the actual voting electorate grew by less than we might have ordinarily expected (i.e., from 7.4% to 8.4%), given the underlying demographic changes affecting the American electorate.

This is a sharp contrast with 2008, when Latino voter participation rose from 47.2% to 49.9% in the same year as overall voter participation fell from 63.8% to 63.6%, a rise of 5.8% (and an overall rise of 6.1% relative to trends within the greater population). This increase, which was the third in a row since 1996, suggested that the Latino share of the actual vote might be primed to rise at an even faster rate than the overall Latino population (relative to the total U.S. population). But for reasons that remain unknown, this didn't happen; it would now appear that the growth in the Latino electoral "voice" will be slower to emerge than was earlier thought.

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).

<more to come>

---

Stat wonks will notice discrepancies between some of the figures I'm using here and those found in other places (like the exit polls conducted by Edison Research back in November 2012); that's because I'm using numbers from the Census Bureau's report on the 2012, which don't entirely agree with Edison's (which is really nothing new; there are similar discrepancies every year, and usually in the same direction at that). Edison's numbers show the Latino share of the electoral at 8%, 9%, and 10% across the last three cycles, and are commonly cited by most statistical references, including Pew Research (eg., in "Latino Voters in the 2012 Election", by Mark Hugo Lopez and Paul Taylor). The Census Bureau shows 6.0%, 7.4%, and 8.4% across the same three cycles by way of comparison.

The best way to handle the difference is, frankly speaking, to ignore it. Treat each study individually and look at its findings independently; don't try to make calculations by grabbing numbers from one source and combining them with numbers from the other. Doing anything else is going to get you in trouble, due to the fact that each uses slightly different data definitions and slightly different methods of calculation.

[Edlichbury]

Very true.

But I don't think they're in as much of a downward spiral as some would like to believe; in the UK, when the vote was given to all (or most) working class men a century or so ago, people saw it as a disaster for the Conservatives. But look who's in government now. The fact is they'll retain support because their demographics will change; while it's a convincing argument that demographics would outmanoeuvre them, reality sometimes says otherwise.

Guess who pushed for their vote- Disraeli and the Tories. He just had the good political sense to push it before the Liberals did.

Which is incidentally how Republicans in America dominated the vote until FDR. A combination of their push for women's suffrage and the end of discrimination against blacks in the South helped them crush most Democratic candidates in the polls up until FDR.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Guess who pushed for their vote- Disraeli and the Tories. He just had the good political sense to push it before the Liberals did.

Which is incidentally how Republicans in America dominated the vote until FDR. A combination of their push for women's suffrage and the end of discrimination against blacks in the South helped them crush most Democratic candidates in the polls up until FDR.

Yep. FDR proved that in times of economic crisis, food on the table will trump every single other issue out there.

[Destiny Island]

Ooh I got a good one if anyone is still reading this thread.
How about stop pressuring their Moderates or even Liberals (if liberal republicans still exist, or ever did exist) to be the rightest of wings. Or stop listening to all the lobby groups that practically run the party.

[Maurepas]

Ooh I got a good one if anyone is still reading this thread.
How about stop pressuring their Moderates or even Liberals (if liberal republicans still exist, or ever did exist) to be the rightest of wings. Or stop listening to all the lobby groups that practically run the party.

That's crazy and it'll never work. You'll alienate all the people running the party into the ground, and then where will you be?

[Quintium]

The Republican Party needs to embrace libertarianism a lot more. It needs to propose a government that focuses on public safety and keeping a good army, and staying out of people's lives otherwise. Of course, even then, they might be fighting an uphill battle, with the Democrats resorting to all kinds of filthy tactics to get the Republican vote out of the way. What they're doing in the south, for example, is a bloody shame. It's a good tactic, and one I'd also use if I was addicted to short-term gain - get half of Mexico to move into traditional Republican bastions, and get them registered as voters.

[Ashmoria]

OK I have a new path. one based on how they got so popular in the states.

start NOW to wrangle the conservative billionaires and school those assholes in what kind of ads its going to take in '16 to overcome the public's disgust of republican politics.

get 2 or 3 BILLION dollars in donations and spend them in whatever way is necessary to flood out any democratic messaging that might come in '16, too little too late.

[Regnum Dominae]

No, make them the sane center right equivalent of Democrats.

So.. the Democrats?

The Democrats are center left economically.

---

Another thing the Republicans could do is completely leapfrog the socially moderate Democrats by jumping from their current social conservatism into social liberalism/libertarianism. This could have excellent results by 2020 as today's young people become more reliable voters. Because a lot of young people now are VERY socially liberal while not really caring about economics, this could help them a lot.

[Regnum Dominae]

OK I have a new path. one based on how they got so popular in the states.

start NOW to wrangle the conservative billionaires and school those assholes in what kind of ads its going to take in '16 to overcome the public's disgust of republican politics.

get 2 or 3 BILLION dollars in donations and spend them in whatever way is necessary to flood out any democratic messaging that might come in '16, too little too late.

As long as the Tea Party is a major influence, I would think that the less they talk, the better their results.

[Maurepas]

So.. the Democrats?

The Democrats are center left economically.

---

Another thing the Republicans could do is completely leapfrog the socially moderate Democrats by jumping from their current social conservatism into social liberalism/libertarianism. This could have excellent results by 2020 as today's young people become more reliable voters. Because a lot of young people now are VERY socially liberal while not really caring about economics, this could help them a lot.

I challenge you to find anything economically Obama has done that Bush didn't also do.

[Ashmoria]

OK I have a new path. one based on how they got so popular in the states.

start NOW to wrangle the conservative billionaires and school those assholes in what kind of ads its going to take in '16 to overcome the public's disgust of republican politics.

get 2 or 3 BILLION dollars in donations and spend them in whatever way is necessary to flood out any democratic messaging that might come in '16, too little too late.

As long as the Tea Party is a major influence, I would think that the less they talk, the better their results.

they cant shut up. the only chance they have is to flood the next elections with money--it worked excellently well in the states--and get the casual voters worked up about some lie or other about the next democratic candidates

[AiliailiA]

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?

I think your suggestions are all good, up to 5. There isn't a single issue (as with the Dixiecrats) which the mainstream Republicans could confront the Tea Party with, so offending them that they walk out and form an actual party. I think Republicans just have to accept that their party was successfully boarded, hope the worst of it is over, and make all the other strategies work well enough that in the House at least they command a majority without Tea Party support.

In my opinion, that's just about impossible. The Tea Party trying to jack their agenda isn't the biggest problem Republicans have (it's roughly in the order you listed, but with TP at 3 or 4) but it's the hardest one to solve.

[Farnhamia]

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?

I think your suggestions are all good, up to 5. There isn't a single issue (as with the Dixiecrats) which the mainstream Republicans could confront the Tea Party with, so offending them that they walk out and form an actual party. I think Republicans just have to accept that their party was successfully boarded, hope the worst of it is over, and make all the other strategies work well enough that in the House at least they command a majority without Tea Party support.

In my opinion, that's just about impossible. The Tea Party trying to jack their agenda isn't the biggest problem Republicans have (it's roughly in the order you listed, but with TP at 3 or 4) but it's the hardest one to solve.

It will be a long time until the Tea Party is over for the GOP. As long as they send people like Ted Cruz to the Senate, a man who breaks the cardinal rule of being a Republican, "You do not talk about Fight ..." no, no, sorry, "You don't speak ill of another Republican," they will have power and having power will stain the Grand Old Party for decades to come.

[AiliailiA]

The Democrats are center left economically.

---

Another thing the Republicans could do is completely leapfrog the socially moderate Democrats by jumping from their current social conservatism into social liberalism/libertarianism. This could have excellent results by 2020 as today's young people become more reliable voters. Because a lot of young people now are VERY socially liberal while not really caring about economics, this could help them a lot.

I challenge you to find anything economically Obama has done that Bush didn't also do.

Did you accidentally put the answer to some other post there?

Social liberalism. Don't talk about economics at all, don't come up with scary tax plans or get hysterical about debt. Be more liberal than the Democrats on marriage, drugs, citizenship.

I don't actually think it would work. Dems would just stay where they are and laugh as the Republican party split into a small social-liberal party and a small religious-right party. That frog don't jump.

[AiliailiA]

I think your suggestions are all good, up to 5. There isn't a single issue (as with the Dixiecrats) which the mainstream Republicans could confront the Tea Party with, so offending them that they walk out and form an actual party. I think Republicans just have to accept that their party was successfully boarded, hope the worst of it is over, and make all the other strategies work well enough that in the House at least they command a majority without Tea Party support.

In my opinion, that's just about impossible. The Tea Party trying to jack their agenda isn't the biggest problem Republicans have (it's roughly in the order you listed, but with TP at 3 or 4) but it's the hardest one to solve.

It will be a long time until the Tea Party is over for the GOP. As long as they send people like Ted Cruz to the Senate, a man who breaks the cardinal rule of being a Republican, "You do not talk about Fight ..." no, no, sorry, "You don't speak ill of another Republican," they will have power and having power will stain the Grand Old Party for decades to come.

I agree. In the spirit of the OP though I'm trying to find some hope for them.

70 Republicans in the Senate? What is Lindsey Graham smoking ...

[Farnhamia]

It will be a long time until the Tea Party is over for the GOP. As long as they send people like Ted Cruz to the Senate, a man who breaks the cardinal rule of being a Republican, "You do not talk about Fight ..." no, no, sorry, "You don't speak ill of another Republican," they will have power and having power will stain the Grand Old Party for decades to come.

I agree. In the spirit of the OP though I'm trying to find some hope for them.

70 Republicans in the Senate? What is Lindsey Graham smoking ...

You're being too kind. The sooner they realize there is no hope with the Tea Party, the sooner they'll start to heal. And yeah, that's a bit much but he's preaching to the choir, he has to sound like he believes.

[Maurepas]

I challenge you to find anything economically Obama has done that Bush didn't also do.

Did you accidentally put the answer to some other post there?

Social liberalism. Don't talk about economics at all, don't come up with scary tax plans or get hysterical about debt. Be more liberal than the Democrats on marriage, drugs, citizenship.

I don't actually think it would work. Dems would just stay where they are and laugh as the Republican party split into a small social-liberal party and a small religious-right party. That frog don't jump.

I was actually replying to the idea that the Democrats are "Center-Left", because both parties are Right-wing economically.

[Maurepas]

I agree. In the spirit of the OP though I'm trying to find some hope for them.

70 Republicans in the Senate? What is Lindsey Graham smoking ...

You're being too kind. The sooner they realize there is no hope with the Tea Party, the sooner they'll start to heal. And yeah, that's a bit much but he's preaching to the choir, he has to sound like he believes.

It would have to be from the top down, and very concerted though. I mean, the problem with the Tea Party isn't even really with the organization itself, it's that their constituents are the only ones who show up to the Primaries, and I don't see that changing much. The mainstream never care to actually show up to those sorts of things.

[Saiwania]

I was actually replying to the idea that the Democrats are "Center-Left", because both parties are Right-wing economically.

The Democrats are not economically right wing, they are opposed to cutting welfare and always want more government spending and increased taxation to fund entitlements.

[Maurepas]

I was actually replying to the idea that the Democrats are "Center-Left", because both parties are Right-wing economically.

The Democrats are not economically right wing, they are opposed to cutting welfare and always want more government spending and increased taxation to fund entitlements.

The idea that that's all it takes to be leftist is one of the bigger problems in the Republican party.

[AiliailiA]

I was actually replying to the idea that the Democrats are "Center-Left", because both parties are Right-wing economically.

The Democrats are not economically right wing, they are opposed to cutting welfare and always want more government spending and increased taxation to fund entitlements.

"Welfare" is as much a social issue as an economic one. But anyway, what's the topic?

[AiliailiA]

The Democrats are not economically right wing, they are opposed to cutting welfare and always want more government spending and increased taxation to fund entitlements.

The idea that that's all it takes to be leftist is one of the bigger problems in the Republican party.

Perhaps. If Saiwania's recipe for success is "just keep calling Democrats names" I don't think it will work.

[Farnhamia]

You're being too kind. The sooner they realize there is no hope with the Tea Party, the sooner they'll start to heal. And yeah, that's a bit much but he's preaching to the choir, he has to sound like he believes.

It would have to be from the top down, and very concerted though. I mean, the problem with the Tea Party isn't even really with the organization itself, it's that their constituents are the only ones who show up to the Primaries, and I don't see that changing much. The mainstream never care to actually show up to those sorts of things.

They'd better start or they'll be apologizing for being a Republican for the rest of eternity. All it takes is decent people to do nothing and the party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Eisenhower into the party of George W. Bush, Mitt Romney and Ted Cruz, the party Fox News, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann.