GOP welcoming moderates now. This strategy work for you?

[Llama_Llogophile]

@DSYoungEsq

Well, me for one. I was registered to vote in the Republican primaries when I lived in California all through the 80s and much of the 90s. I believe government is run best at the federal level when it is careful about what it spends, yet does so with an understanding that it has an obligation to better our society in some way. I support the concept of environmentalism, including the EPA, but I’m not a believer in using the Act, or the concept, to obstruct growth in the country. I want a good education system, am not yet convinced that socialized education is a bad thing, but do not think the way to solve education issues is to simply throw more and more money on the system. I don’t believe in continued efforts at racially based affirmative action, both because I’m not convinced they work, and because I think they continue to divide through a dichotomy that shouldn’t exist (race). However, I don’t think that we should simply abandon those who grow up through disadvantaged environments; if we are going to act affirmatively to better the lot of such people, we need to do so without limiting those efforts to people who’s skin is darker than others.

I don’t believe that a “life” worth protecting in the same way a born person’s life is protected exists at the moment of conception, but I do believe that at some point in the gestation of a human fetus, some level of protection must be given to that potential live human. I’m not female, so I tend to defer on issues regarding abortion; I’m glad God didn’t saddle me with ovaries and I’ll say so to anyone who asks! But I am not comfortable with the concept of abortion as a method of contraception/birth control, and I believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided upon LEGAL grounds, without regard to the moral issues involved.

I think people who identify as homosexual should be allowed to “marry” and register that relationship with the government, and be entitled to call themselves “married” and enjoy the fruits (and the stings!) of “marriage.” But I’m not so certain that government should be offering ANY distinction to people on the basis of whether or not they’ve accomplished some specific religious ceremony; I’d be much happier to simply call what everyone does a “civil union” for the purpose of the law and let individual religions decide what they will annoint with the status of “marriage.”

I believe in having a strong military, and using it as needed, but I think we have a responsibility to use that strength in a very careful manner. Gulf War I was a reasonable exercise in force; Gulf War II was stupidity personnified. I’ve worked on weapons systems in the past, and have no qualms about having done so (admittedly, I was very peripheral to the development, but my father was instrumental in the ongoing development of Sidewinder, Shrike and other missiles and I have no qualms about HIS activities). I would not participate in the military unless it was absolutely necessary to protect my country and loved ones, but I was proud to have a brother, and two brothers-in-law who served in the armed forces.

I think Mapp v. Ohio was a bad decision, and I’ve long opined that the exclusionary rule should be removed, in favor of some other method of remedying constitutional violations of our fourth, fifth and sixth amendment rights. Miranda has absolutely no basis in the Constitution. But by the same token, I consider the rights of the accused very important to safeguard, and am very leery of letting police set the limits of what they can do, since we see all too often that they will go to excess to accomplish what they perceive is a “just” result.

I believe the death penalty should be abolished, but I don’t think it violates the 8th Amendment.

So, as you see, I’m quite a good moderate. I have some conservative viewpoints, I have some viewpoints that are “liberal”, and I have some viewpoints that are not easily pegged as one or the other.

I stopped voting in the Republican primary in California in the mid-90s, as it became clear to me that the Republican party was sliding slowly down to the right, in an increasing attempt to pander to those who feel that their specific social mores should be enforced upon everyone, mores which are much more “conservative” than those of the majority of our population. When I lived in Ohio, I saw no reason to change that primary affiliation. Here in South Carolina, I listen to the local Republicans and wonder if they even look at their state at all. In a state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation (my current county has an unemployment rate of 18%!!), with vast areas of underperforming economy, growing social issues, and a general malaise that threatens to overwhelm the population, the only things the Republicans here can offer are “cut taxes more!” and “let people choose where to send their kids for education!” Right.

The last Republican candidate for President I voted for was G.H.W. Bush, and unless the party changes their viewpoint and philosophy, I’m not likely to support or vote for anyone else Republican in the near future. And that’s a shame, because frankly, the Democrats don’t have answers right now, and running on the “We ain’t THEM!” platform doesn’t make me particularly happy about having them in power.

Oh, please…

Stop with the thoughtfulness and attention to nuance. That has no place in American politics.

Unfortunately.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@2ply

Still not evidence. The best the article can say is that it helped get out social conservatives to vote. It doesn’t state anywhere that it was enough to push a state for Bush that would have otherwise gone to Kerry. It contains a lot of speculation but no facts to back it up. But here’s a quote from that same article:

You said there was “no evidence” which is wrong. There is evidence…the article itself is evidence. The article says, “…political analysts credit the ballot measure with increasing turnout in Republican bastions in the south and west, while also pushing swing voters in the Appalachian region of the southeast toward Mr. Bush.” I’d opine that “political analysts” count as evidence unless you are proposing that they didn’t actually analyze anything and just pulled that opinion out of their collective asses. Not to mention the opinion of the Chairman of the Republican Party in Ohio who held the same view.

The article and the quote you selected still says Bush would have won Ohio by 36,000 votes even if he didn’t increase his share of the Ohio black vote from 9 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2004. It also makes no mention of same-sex marriage issue or its appeal to black voters. It suggests that the GOP spent more money on commercials targeting blacks and Hispanics.

There were much, much bigger reasons for Bush’s reelection in 2004 than gay marriage. The first being the war.

Bush increased his share of the black vote in Ohio. I haven’t looked it up but presume the same pattern would have held elsewhere as well. It was a close election and as noted all it would have taken was Ohio tipping for Kerry and Kerry would have won the presidency. We cannot know the reasons why so many more blacks voted for Bush in 2004 than in 2000 in Ohio but I am hard pressed to think of a primary reason other than Gay Marriage spurring a great deal of that. Bush & Co. was hardly known for their consideration of minorities in the first four years of the administration. Prior to that election I would have guessed Bush would lose support among the black community. The article supposes the difference of just going back to the 2000 vote count. Add in voter roll purging that inordinately targeted minorities in Ohio and the combined effect can easily be the difference when it is that close.

We can never know exactly why every person voted for whoever they did. There is however strong evidence that the Gay Marriage issue helped Bush gain votes and Kerry lose votes overall. In the end could it have turned the election? Who knows…it would have been a helluva lot closer at the least in an already close election.

[sqweels]

@2ply

I’ve said this before: There is no evidence that gay marriage won the 04 election for Bush. The fact that my home state of Michigan, among others in 2004, voted for Kerry and against gay marriage, refutes that. Surprise, surprise, a lot of loyal Democrats voted for Democrats and still don’t like gay marriage.

But why did Bush get nearly 12 million more votes than he did in 2000, even as Kerry got nearly 9 million more than Gore did?

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

DSYoungEsq, it sounds like we have very similar outlooks. Bush the elder was the last Pubbie candidate for national office I voted for too, and I just can’t see myself rejoining them again. Not when their message is “get back in the house, sit down, shut up, and eat what we serve you”. Thankee-Sai, but I’ll say no to that invite, big-big.

[Little_Nemo]

Problem with that is, in a three-party system – i.e., a GOP of moderates, a large third party of movement conservatives, and the Democratic Party as now constituted – the Dems would always win, their opposition being split into two parties, neither of which could claim a majority outside a few red-county enclaves.

There’s no way “the Democratic Party as now constituted” would still exist. If the Republicans kicked the conservatives out of the party (or if the conservatives left on their own) the resulting moderate Republican party would attract a substantial number of people who are currently Democrats.

[2ply]

@Whack-a-Mole

You said there was “no evidence” which is wrong. There is evidence…the article itself is evidence. The article says, “…political analysts credit the ballot measure with increasing turnout in Republican bastions in the south and west, while also pushing swing voters in the Appalachian region of the southeast toward Mr. Bush.” I’d opine that “political analysts” count as evidence unless you are proposing that they didn’t actually analyze anything and just pulled that opinion out of their collective asses. Not to mention the opinion of the Chairman of the Republican Party in Ohio who held the same view.

The article isn’t evidence. It still doesn’t say anywhere that the ballot initiative was the reason Bush won Ohio.

Increased Republican turnout doesn’t mean that the gay marriage issue was responsible for Bush winning Ohio. Bush would have won Ohio without same sex marriage as an issue. He already did in 2000.

The numbers just don’t work out to conclude that gay marriage handed Bush Ohio, or any other of the 11 states where it was an issue, or the election as a whole.

@Whack-a-Mole

We cannot know the reasons why so many more blacks voted for Bush in 2004 than in 2000 in Ohio but I am hard pressed to think of a primary reason other than Gay Marriage spurring a great deal of that.

As has already been stated, Bush would have won Ohio even without gaining any black voters.

I can think of another reason Bush slightly increased his share of the black vote: The War on Terror. Biggest issue of the campaign by far. It worked even better with whites, too.

@sqweels

But why did Bush get nearly 12 million more votes than he did in 2000, even as Kerry got nearly 9 million more than Gore did?

The war. No president has ever lost re-election during a war, even during Vietnam. It was the reason so many more people went to vote for both sides than they did in 2000.

[astorian]

@DSYoungEsq

So, as you see, I’m quite a good moderate. I have some conservative viewpoints, I have some viewpoints that are “liberal”, and I have some viewpoints that are not easily pegged as one or the other.

I lived in New York city most of my life. If you were running, I might very well look around, hold my nose and vote for you, since you’re about as good an option as I was ever likely to get there.

That’s what I mean by settling for half a loaf. A conservative of my ilk isn’t likely to get elected dog catcher in New York City, so a Rudy Giuliani may be as coinservative a candidate as I’m going to get.

I still fai lto see where Arlen Specter offered someone like me even half a loaf. Was he with the conservatives on social issues? Obviously not. On the judges? Nope. On taxes and spending? Again, no- he showed by his craven surrender to Obama’s budget that he wasn’t with us on ANYTHING!!!

Specter, like Jeffords before him, was an opportunist who loved being the fig leaf who allowed Democratic Presidents to claim, with a straight face, that he was acting in a bipartisan manner. And so long as the GOP needed them to keep a majority in the Senate, Specter and Jeffords were happy to extort concessions and perks for their home states.

Well, Specter is about to find out the same sad truth Jeffords has learned: he doesn’t MATTER any more! The Democrats don’t need him, the way the Republicans did, and don’t have to offer him squat! He won’t have any more power or status, because he’s got nowhere else to go. NEITHER side will see the slightest need to treat him with courtesy, let alone deference.

In fact, it would serve the weasel right if some Daily Kos wacko (one who’s never forgiven Specter for the “magic bullet theory”) would run against him in the Democratic primary and trounce him!

[astorian]

@Little_Nemo

There’s no way “the Democratic Party as now constituted” would still exist. If the Republicans kicked the conservatives out of the party (or if the conservatives left on their own) the resulting moderate Republican party would attract a substantial number of people who are currently Democrats.

Here’s where you’re totally delusional: ASSUME that the GOP could kick out the Religious Right (psssst… they can’t!!! “Moderates” are an incosnequential minority in the GOP, and “taking back” the party for the Rockefeller/Javits/Weicker crowd is a silly pipe dream).

Are the religious conservatives going to stop voting? Of course not. They’ll keep voting. BUT… what you’re overlooking is what Thomas Frank has been pointing out for years now: social conservatives have often voted Republicant AGAINST their own selfish interests.

A man who works in a South Carolina textile mill may be extremely conservative on the social issues, but his personal financial interests may well lie with the liberal Democrats! The Democrats are the ones offering him more tangible economic benefits. So, IF the Olympia Snowes were ever to “take back” the Republican party, and push the social issues off the table, do you not see that the Religious Right would start voting their pocketbooks? And if they do, the liberal DEMOCRATS win. Not the squishy Republicans.

[What_Exit]

@astorian

Here’s where you’re totally delusional: ASSUME that the GOP could kick out the Religious Right (psssst… they can’t!!! “Moderates” are an incosnequential minority in the GOP, and “taking back” the party for the Rockefeller/Javits/Weicker crowd is a silly pipe dream).

Are the religious conservatives going to stop voting? Of course not. They’ll keep voting. BUT… what you’re overlooking is what Thomas Frank has been pointing out for years now: social conservatives have often voted Republicant AGAINST their own selfish interests.

A man who works in a South Carolina textile mill may be extremely conservative on the social issues, but his personal financial interests may well lie with the liberal Democrats! The Democrats are the ones offering him more tangible economic benefits. So, IF the Olympia Snowes were ever to “take back” the Republican party, and push the social issues off the table, do you not see that the Religious Right would start voting their pocketbooks? And if they do, the liberal DEMOCRATS win. Not the squishy Republicans.

I partially agree. It took a long time but I did finally face the music that the Republican party will never go back to what it is, but that is why I actually hope Steele and Rush and their ilk keep the reins of power long enough to give a chance for a new party in the middle. One that can grab many Indies, disenfranchised Repubs (like me) and the centrist Dems. Then the Repubs will just fade away like others have before them.

[Boyo_Jim]

Astorian, am I understanding you correctly? You think that most of the religious right would vote Democrat, rather than Republican, and rather than form their own third party, if they no longer felt welcomed within the Republican party?

[DSYoungEsq]

astorian, your current blind hatred of Sen. Specter is blinding you to the points being made here. You asserted in one of your posts that “Frankly, I’ve almost never encountered a true “moderate.” Oh, I know tons of liberals who CLAIM to be moderate, but I’d love to know what you think a “moderate” is. Basically, a “moderate” is a liberal who wants tax breaks for his pet causes, or a liberal who wants to throw an occasional bone to big business.” My post was meant to show you that this is utter balderdash. But you don’t want to acknowledge that there is really such a thing as a “moderate” voter, someone who can identify with aspects of the underlying values of your party of choice, but who can also identify with aspects of the party you oppose. You prefer to wallow in the notion that, if the voter isn’t one all fours with your own views, he’s really a closet liberal, even if he thinks otherwise. Thus, there is no value in trying to pander to him because he’ll simply stab you in the back and do what his “liberal” instincts tell him to do as soon as it’s profitable to do so. It’s this misguided characterization of a very large chunk of American society that is costing the Republicans at present. You have to change this, and you aren’t going to do so by focusing on this most current example of someone who is middle of the road in his voting record (whatever the reason) switching sides, and heaping your virulent vitriol all over him in the agony of your delusional denial.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@astorian

Here’s where you’re totally delusional: ASSUME that the GOP could kick out the Religious Right (psssst… they can’t!!! “Moderates” are an incosnequential minority in the GOP, and “taking back” the party for the Rockefeller/Javits/Weicker crowd is a silly pipe dream).

Not following your math here.

Today, white evangelicals make up 22% of the population, and constitute nearly four out of every ten (39%) Republicans.

SOURCE: Will White Evangelicals Desert the GOP? | Pew Research Center

So, a significant minority.

And who do you suppose those white, evangelical voters will vote for when offered a moderate republican or a democrat? It goes back to the hold your nose thing and pull the lever when voting. The moderate republican will not be as strong on many issues as they would like but likely to be closer to what they want than some pinko commie librul.

[Eonwe]

In local/state politics I tend towards democrat, but am often pretty diverse in who I support in a given election year.

The last election here I voted 100% democrat, because the democrats were the only people who seemed to be interested in any way in finding a middle ground on issues.

Also, I will typically vote against anyone who takes a strong stance opposite me on anything I consider an issue of equality (ie, our Governor recently vetoed a same-sex marriage bill . . . I am very unlikely to vote for him next term).

With so many issues facing us, anyone who isn’t at least partially a moderate has got to be partially insane (IMHO). Taking positions on politicians or policy because of personal ideals, without examining the situation seems to be de rigeur for the mouthpieces and parrots of both parties.

It defies belief that, for example, I can predict with great accuracy people’s reaction to any policy out of the Obama administration, strictly based on what party that person aligns him/herself with. In general, sure, I’d expect Democrats to react more favorably to his policies than Republicans, but it seems that every decision made is wrong in the eyes of Republicans (and this works 100% the other way as well).

I know this is sort of a hijack, but it’s in response to astorian’s claims that anyone who doesn’t fit his definition of a Republican is actually a Democrat, and good riddance!

[Der_Trihs]

@jk1245

So, IOW, no, this “strategy” will not work for me. Mainly because it’s not a strategy, it’s a talking point. If they actually went ahead and did it, then sure, I’ll listen.

I’d say that it IS a strategy - of sorts. It’s just a bad strategy. It’s a strategy to draw back moderates, without giving them any incentive to do so beyond talking points. It won’t work very well because the sort of blindly loyal Republicans who’d buy into that sort of empty rhetoric aren’t the ones leaving.

@Whack-a-Mole

In a thread around here awhile back where people chimed in about the (then occurring) Republican Convention I noted I was playing a game called, “Spot the minority”. I really did play this game with myself and it was truly amazing to note I was hard pressed to find a minority of any stripe there. Oh sure, there were some few but very, VERY few.

I recall a comment a few election cycles ago from one of the very few black delegates to a Republican Convention; he said it was really creepy how as soon as he showed up all the cameras nearby would focus on him, and relentlessly track him. They apparently wanted to show the country that “Yes, we are inclusive ! We have black people too !”- but he was pretty much it.

@Eonwe

It defies belief that, for example, I can predict with great accuracy people’s reaction to any policy out of the Obama administration, strictly based on what party that person aligns him/herself with. In general, sure, I’d expect Democrats to react more favorably to his policies than Republicans, but it seems that every decision made is wrong in the eyes of Republicans (and this works 100% the other way as well).

I certainly don’t see it as 100% the other way; I’ve heard plenty of disaffection with Obama’s decisions from the farther left of the Democrats.

[Captain_Carrot]

@jtgain

If you take out the increased black votes from the mix, then Obama certainly loses Florida, Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina.

Nonsense, at least for Virgina. North Carolina, Florida, and especially Indiana were all pretty close, but he won Virginia by over 6%. That’s a lot more than the increase in black voters from 2004.

[foolsguinea]

@What_Exit

From Steele’s own words last week, the don’t want moderates back if we happen to not be Pro-Life. They don’t seem to friendly to the idea of Green Republicans. They don’t seem to want anyone that doesn’t support laws to prevent Gay marriage. I don’t think they really want the Rockefeller or Roosevelt Republicans back on our terms. They want us to vote for their flawed platform without thought.

Yeah, that’s my feeling as well, as a Green who grew up in the GOP.

[Sam_Stone]

The Republicans are screwed, and it’s not just their message. The problem they have is that the Democrats are building a huge coalition of interests who are becoming increasingly dependent on government and Democratic policies for their well-being.

When half the population pays no tax, it’s hard to win an election by promising to cut taxes.

When half the population receives government benefits, it’s hard to win an election by promising to cut government benefits.

When 80% of the population relies on the government for education funding, for health care, and other services, it’s hard to win an election by promising to cut services.

That is, it’s hard to do until these programs lead to a train wreck (if they do).

[MichaelQReilly]

@What_Exit

Not quite, a new Moderate Party could once again start in the North. It would start winning seats and slowly grow in power and then they would start picking up many Governorships. Eventually the Republican party would lose the Libertarians, Neo-Cons and of course the Fiscal Conservatives and the remaining Neo-Cons would struggle along for a decade or two in a few states in the deep South and some of the other extremely Red states. The Dems would dominate for a long time but not forever. Maybe as little as 20 years total. A moderate party would probably cut the Dems quite a bit in the states. Once the party structure is in place, in-roads into the Senate and Congress will happen.

This is all up to the Republicans though. They could move back to the center and kill any chances or they can keep up the current rhetoric and keep telling moderates that we are liberals and then a new party could be birthed.

The northeast is certainly fertile ground for a new party that resembles Teddy Roosevelt Republicanism. As everybody knows, there are almost no Republicans left from New England in Congress, but its even worse at the state level. Here in CT the Dems hold veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress. Although there is a relatively popular Republican governor, she bears almost no resemblance to the national party. It’s even worse at the municipal level. My town and all the other towns I know of have town councils that are around 90% Democrat. There is plenty of support here for a fiscal conservative, socially liberal, moderate on regulation party here, but as long as they are tainted by the troglodytes who make up the base of the Republican party, they have no chance.

[Sam_Stone]

Sorry, I had to break that up, because I accidentally hit save and was running against the 5 minute edit window. Anyway…

You Democrats should be feeling really good about your position right now, because you believe these programs will work. You believe the stimulus will cause the economy to recover. You believe that new spending on education will lead to better outcomes. You believe that public health care will lead to longer life expectancy and better health services. You believe that stronger unions and more regulations on business will lead to a healthier economy and a richer middle class.

If you’re right, Republicans are truly screwed unless they support those programs, in which case they cease to be Republicans.

On the other hand, if in four or eight years the economy is in recession, workers are continually going on strike, businesses are fleeing to other countries, inflation is back, interest rates are high and growth is low, and everyone’s queued up in waiting lists for health care, then there will be a movement towards smaller government.

Thatcher couldn’t get elected in Britain until Labor ruined large swaths of the economy. Reagan couldn’t get elected until stagflation and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan gave Republican principles new life. And so it will be this time - if your grand Democratic experiment works, you win regardless of whatever silly talking points Republicans come up with. If it doesn’t, Republicans just have to run against those failed policies, and they’ll be back in power.

That’s the bottom line.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Where is this alternate universe USA where half the population doesn’t pay taxes and is dependent on the government? Is there a portal or something I can use to get there?