Posted on 01/31/2009 4:52:16 AM PST by Kaslin
There's a debate going on in some Republican circles over which groups of the electorate the party should target.
This debate starts off with some uncomfortable realizations. One is that while John McCain's 46 percent share of the vote is not as dismal as some losing candidates of the past, it is still far short of a majority and does not look to be easily expanded. Yes, McCain showed strength in Jacksonian America, along the Appalachian chain and west to Arkansas and Oklahoma. And he ran well with whites in the Deep South. But these are not growing demographics.
A second uncomfortable realization is that McCain ran dismally among blacks (losing 95 percent to 4 percent, according to the Edison-Mitofsky exit poll) and voters under 30 (losing 66 percent to 32 percent). The good news for Republicans is that there's not much room for Democrats to grow among black voters. The bad news is that voters who were under 30 in 2008 are going to be a larger and larger share of the electorate. To get a glimpse of the future, consider that McCain carried young voters in only nine states with 57 electoral votes. And in only five of those states, with 22 electoral votes, did he win more than 55 percent of the young.
A final uncomfortable realization is that the affluent suburbs have, outside the South and even in parts of the South -- North Carolina's Research Triangle, metro Orlando -- become Democratic. Nationally, McCain ran even with Barack Obama among voters with incomes over $50,000 and over $100,000. He actually ran behind among voters with incomes over $200,000. Obama carried narrowly those with college degrees and ran far ahead among those with graduate degrees.
The debate among Republicans is whether to go after downscale or upscale voters. Those who argue for going downscale usually have a 2012 candidate in mind: Sarah Palin. She has an undoubted appeal to such voters and revved up part of the Republican base -- cultural conservatives, and rural and small-town voters -- throughout the campaign. Despite the scorn the media heaped on her, she has excellent political instincts and seems capable of developing the knowledge base that would make her a credible presidential candidate in the future.
But my examination of the exit poll results and county-by-county election returns has led me to conclude tentatively that going upscale is the right move. As David Frum has pointed out, we're going to have more well-educated and millennial-generation voters in the future and fewer less-educated and Baby Boomers (among whom McCain ran even).
There are some immediate targets. Among all voters, Democratic House candidates won higher percentages than Obama. But voters at the low end of the age spectrum and the high end of the income and education spectrums cast higher percentages for Obama than House Democrats. They are, at the moment, Obama Republicans, hopeful that Obama can forge the bipartisan coalitions he has promised and eager for the change they think he represents. But that's not the change that congressional Democrats have produced, at least so far.
They passed their pork-laden stimulus package in the House without a single Republican vote. This positions Republican candidates to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that congressional Democrats are preventing our president from governing as he wants to. We want to help.
Going upscale also means downplaying the cultural issues that were an important reason for Republican victories from 1980 to 2004. Here, young voters are critical, and their attitudes give guidance. They oppose criminalization of abortion, but they also disfavor it -- the position of the great middle of the electorate. They tend to favor same-sex marriage -- the days of winning votes by opposing it are nearing an end. And while they seem blithely confident that government action can solve problems like health care, they are also a generation that insists on choice in their personal lives. Members of the iPod generation don't wait for their elders to tell them what the top 40 songs are. They make their own playlists.
There's a tension here, which Republicans can exploit, between the tactics of the MyObama campaign and the policies he favors that would limit choices -- one-size-fits-all government health insurance, the effective abolition of secret ballot unionization elections, and environmental policies that reduce your choice of cars and increase the price of energy.
Republicans can argue that their policies will let you choose your future. No, I don't have a candidate in mind, and I don't think Republicans can abandon cultural conservatives altogether. But upscale seems to me to be the way to go.
Frum and Barone are either stupid (no way), seriously misguided, completely missing the implications of the 06 and 08 elections, or in the camp of the enemies of the America that we believe in.
I don’t really think big changes are necessary. If McCain had just gotten Republicans to come out and vote for him, he might have won. A lot of conservative Republicans stayed home and a lot of moderate Republicans voted for Obama. Both groups had their reasons.
If you don’t have the voters who are supposed to be a lock on your side, you don’t have a chance.
That would require principles...
The GOP went into the general election with the weakest candidate, John McCain. And they still garnered 46 percent of the vote. It reminded me of 1996 when the GOP put up Bob Dole for president? Whats up with that? Are we to put up candidates because it is there turn, or because they are the best candidate to present conservative ideals? I chose the latter. But to do that the GOP needs to go to closed primary elections. How non-party people get to pick our candidates is to bizarre to think about.
The electorate is lazy and will believe what the MSM tells them over and over.
This does not bode well for the future.
This is nothing but one more attempt to save the republican (no cap on purpose) status quo & to never have to look themselves in the eye and face the truth that they are now part of a one party system. Or maybe simply to fool what’s left of their so called base.
Why don’t they try TALKING to these “demographics” (us) out here in the real world? From everyone I know and talked to during the elections, the simple truth is that NO ONE thought it made a difference no matter WHO they voted for so MANY sat this one out. But then, that’s just a pesky little fact and we all know how those things tend to get in the way of big government.
Much better!!
What a load.
It’s the same thing I said during one of the Bush campaigns:
If the party goes right, it becomes Reagan and wins.
If the party goes left, it becomes Dole and loses.
Simple as that, and borne out by several recent presidential elections.
Pretty well covers it, it's time for the so called to republicans to put up are shut up, What is their game plan to fix what the have Mucked-up.
The party stopped being true to itself and started trying to emulate the Demonrats.
Solidify your base in the south. lest the party loses them to a 3rd party. Focus in on winning back the voters in Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Missouri.
The GOP is never going to win on the east or west coasts, so forget about them.
Conservatism is a key ingredient in upward-mobility, where accumulating wealth through the fruits of one's labors is the bedrock foundation.
Contrast that with the dems' redistributionist policies, which seek simply to tear down upscale citizens, and many Americans would see the light, to borrow a cliche.
Just my $.02, of course.
Republicans can argue that their policies will let you choose your future.
Having successfully purged most libertarian-minded politicians from the party, just how is the GOP going to find anyone who can credibly make such arguments? Ron Paul tried - that's why young voters flocked to him. Bush, Cheney, McCain, and Palin eagerly took the opposite side of the spectrum: "We're still Mom and Dad, and you kids (voters) are damn well going to do as you're told!" That sent a thrill of pleasure through moms and dads throughout the heartland and some massive-looking Sarah rallies...at the cost of perhaps ruining the GOP's chances for a generation among the young.
I can't tell you that. But I can tell you this: Our country is registered 60% Democrat. When McCain alone was on the ticket, local GOP headquarters was less than 10% capacity with volunteers. They couldn't give away lawn signs. When Sarah joined the ticket, they couldn't get in lawn signs fast enough and the volunteers came out of the woodwork. Other than the full-time kid who was hired by the McCain campaign, everyone we talked to or worked with there had volunteered because of Sarah.
Joe Biden couldn't get 500 people to take free tickets to a well-advertised event in the middle of the day at the local high school gym. It was so pathetic that the media covering the event wouldn't even show crowd shots: only shots of the amen chorus behind the speaker and one-on-one interviews after the event. Most of us don't think he drew even close to the 500 claimed.
Sarah's tickets to a 6 a.m. airport rally were gone one day after the visit was announced. Crowd shots looked close to the 3000 attendees claimed. McCain carried our county by 58%, largely because he had the sense to stay away and send Sarah.
If you find yourself thinking Michael Barone is stupid, look inwardly.
A party that can't win on the East or West Coasts eventually won't be able to win anywhere. Reagan's coalition was built of people with very different priorities but one common theme: "Government is too big and powerful, and it's hurting all of us. If we band together we can limit its power and help all of us." The GOP has to get back to that central, unifying theme, or it has no reason to exist. You get what we have today: a "Ban Abortion" party, an "Old Country Church" party, a "Blow Up Iran" party, a "Gun Show" party, a "Country Club" party and a "World's Biggest Corporations" party wearing the same lapel pins at a convention, but having virtually no goals in common.
Agree, and honestly, I'm not sure it's just an image. Over the last couple of years, the money class/banks/wall street types have gotten everything they wanted from the government, while pulling scams of incredible proportions. While this was happening, congress was happily passing laws to allow them to change contracts on consumers, removing bankruptcy protection from the individual and allowing a supposed reserve the size of a handkerchief to cover deposits the size of an aircraft carrier.
Yessss....by then the indoctrination is complete. Grade 1-12 than 1-4/5-6/ 7-8- 20 years in some cases. Those EDU. Camps Work!
How did Palin “eagerly” purge any libertarians? Yes, she sounded like a liberal when denouncing greed on Wall Street. But that little stupidity was merely echoing her boss, McCain, and hopefully she has come to her senses now. Can you tell me where else she was anti-libertarian? Has she said anything about libertarians after the election?
As for your mocking phrase about “Mom and Dad” Republicans telling young voters what to do, that’s just silly. The Republican Party could do many things better, such as being tougher against bailouts and socialized medicine. But adopting the hormone- and THC-driven values of the MTV generation is not one of them.
Isn't that exactly what Reagan wanted?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.