The GOP Can’t Afford to Ignore Cities Anymore

TNR ^ | 11/13/12 | DePillis

[pabianice]

After a week of election postmortems, one thing is clear: Mitt Romney’s failure to understand America’s changing demographics led to his undoing. But there was another killer: Geography. Deep blue cities and their inner suburbs came out for Barack Obama, pulling the president through in battleground states like Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. And they put him so far ahead in places like Wisconsin, Nevada, and Pennsylvania that Romney never really had a chance (not to mention his home base of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which went 78 percent for the president).

Of course, this isn't a new phenomenon. In 2008, Obama took cities even more convincingly, allowing him to win North Carolina and Indiana as well. But America is only growing more urban, with cities that had been losing population since the 1960s finally starting to swell again. Eventually, fast-growing blue cities like San Antonio, Houston, and Austin could bring even the GOP stronghold of Texas within the Democrats' reach. In the long term, the stakes are high: Republicans could be relegated to permanent minority party status.

[muawiyah]

Lindsay was passing around an STD to the various women who came to interview him.

[catnipman]

If the party in opposition to the Progressive/Liberal/Marxist/Redistributionist/Socialist/Democrat (PLMRSD) party cannot win by espousing opposition principals and ideas, then it does not matter if the opposition party wins or loses. Our country is lost either way, whether the PLMRSD party wins or whether the opposition party wins by espousing non-opposition principals.

I’d rather go ahead and let the whole thing crash and burn quickly rather than supporting a worthless opposition party that simply drags out the destruction in a long term fashion, so that future rebuilding, if possible, starts to take place sooner.

[TChris]

I think one of the fundamental problems here is that campaign strategists are ignoring the content of the GOP platform in favor of strategy. Winning is more important that what you win.

I, and most other conservatives I know, are not willing to list all our beliefs as "for sale" to gain votes. Yes, there is some uncomfortable compromise between the center and the right that goes on when election time comes around, but I think that going after urban voters would require too much compromise in the defining core of the conservative voter.

City dwellers are generally a good fit for the Left because they both group-think. They believe the natural and moral answers to problems involve large groups of people. Consensus and cooperation, real or imagined, are very important. Those who act as individuals are irresponsible and probably dangerous.

Conservatives and country folks are a most natural fit because they tend to believe more in an individual mandate to solve a problem. When there's something wrong, I start with me to resolve it. If I can't solve the problem then, and only then, do I begin to look for others to help. I will involve the minimum outside help/influence necessary, and then only those I know and trust.

Of course those are broad generalizations, but I think those fundamental differences are what will keep the Right from appealing to urban populations any time soon.

[iopscusa]

Repubs have given up even challenging the Lefty filled cities. Worthless POS Party!

[Eagle of Liberty]

Add in Cleveland and Columbus and there is another state and another Senate seat.

[Ohioan]

Your comments are apt on the surface, but there are exceptions. For an obvious example, Obama got almost all of the inner city Black vote, and yet his policy of softness on illegal aliens bears a causal relationship to the fact that the highest rate of unemployment is among inner-city Black youth. That is not the only factor, do not misunderstand the point. But it most certainly is a contributing factor.

Yet. that said, the politically correct RNC will not raise the point in a way that would cut into Obama's inner city vote. That needs to change.

William Flax

[TChris]

...the politically correct RNC will not raise the point in a way that would cut into Obama's inner city vote. That needs to change.

I agree that there are specific areas where improvements can be made. But I think that cities will remain fundamentally Leftist in the majority.

While we can make some limited gains, conservatism won't gain significant traction with groups that are fundamentally alien to the defining characteristics of conservatism.

[a fool in paradise]

No talk about how Obama and the Democrats have to reach out to the bulk of the counties in this nation that resoundly OPPOSE their rhetoric, lies, agenda and policies.

[Ohioan]

The inner cities will remain Leftist, but the difference between a 70% turnout, 95% for the Leftist candidate, and a 60% turnout, only 85% for the Leftist candidate, would be significant in some key States.

William Flax

[TChris]

The inner cities will remain Leftist, but the difference between a 70% turnout, 95% for the Leftist candidate, and a 60% turnout, only 85% for the Leftist candidate, would be significant in some key States.

Good point.

As long as those can be picked up while remaining true to core conservatism, then I'm all for it. :)

Good luck getting past the rampant election fraud though.