# The future of the GOP brand **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 4, 2015, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240 "2015-07-04T15:28:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2015, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/81 "2015-07-08T02:11:54Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I think I’ve figured it out. Their plan is to drive us insane by making us repeat arguments until we can’t stand it anymore. Then they’ll own the Forum. > > It’s a good plan. I can fell it working… See [PRATT](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT). ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2015, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/82 "2015-07-08T03:23:16Z")
Okay. let’s see what [data actually shows](http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present) about voter turn-out. And it turns out that turn-out in Presidential years is fairly consistently about 15% higher than in mid-term years, that mid-term turn-out has been pretty much up and down in the same range since the mid-70s. For Presidential years see [here](http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). The modern era low was 1996 with 49% and a candidate named Clinton won. The modern era highs have to go back to 1968 (Nixon) to get higher than Obama"s 2008 win with 57%. And Nixon won with a lower turn out than Johnson, who won with a lower turn out than Kennedy … So low turn-out has been a Presidential win for the D-side and high turn-out has been … the hypothesis that low turn-out favors the GOP presidential candidate appears to be falsified. And while it is true that turn out in the 2014 mid-terms was particularly low, the turn-out in Obama’s first mid-term in 2010, was the highest since 1994. Data bitches! ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2015, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/83 "2015-07-08T12:21:12Z")
I too am dying of curiosity to learn what steps the GOP are taking to win over millennials, a voting bloc that is strongly in favor of gay marriage, marijuana legalization and unfettered access to birth control. A group that is also struggling economically (whether that is the natural order of things or a worsening condition is an argument for another thread), which typically doesn’t endear it to Republican policies. So what’s the plan? “Don’t mind that other stuff, it won’t hurt much, and, besides, we’re going to kick out all the illegals to make things better for you?” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2015, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/84 "2015-07-08T20:18:55Z")
Making sure Social Security will be there for them and they won’t just get looted by the Boomers is a good start. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2015, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/85 "2015-07-08T20:30:08Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Making sure Social Security will be there for them and they won’t just get looted by the Boomers is a good start. Pie in the sky thinking. Boomers are split pretty evenly between the two parties, neither of which is interested in “looting” SS. Millennials understand math at least as well – and possibly much better – than old Republicans. It’s also hard enough to get young voters to even think about health care, let alone social security. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2015, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/86 "2015-07-08T20:44:36Z")
Not looting SS, looting millenials since Boomers have been underpaying into the fund and won’t get 100% of the promised benefits unless they tax younger workers more. And SS is a pretty significant issue for millenials in the sense that most think it won’t be there. It will be, but that generation will probably get less out than they pay in, whereas previous generations got more than they paid in. Current policy would pay out 80% of benefits. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2015, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/87 "2015-07-08T21:38:30Z")
Well, its a dog eat puppy world, isn’t it? Was a time, in America, when people had outlived their social usefulness, which is to say, they were no longer profitably employable…those people would take the honorable and responsible course, they would simply live in grinding poverty and then die. No need for fancy and bloated big government programs, just a shovel and a smallish section of Mr. Potter’s field. If these are our people, we should care for them. And if they are not our people, who’s people are they? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2015, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/88 "2015-07-08T21:45:35Z")
Actually, Boomers should just have to pay for their benefits while they work. That is what SS is supposed to be, after all. I’m not worried though. Benefits will be cut to 80% as scheduled. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2015, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/89 "2015-07-08T23:42:48Z")
Do the Republicans actually have a plan for “saving” social security (saving in quotes because SS doesn’t really need saving)? Or at least a plan that will first convince enough voters that SS is jeopardized by Democratic policies and then that they have the solution? The icing on the cake is that they will have to also tell said voters that, “In return for our foolproof and positively brilliant plan to save social security, you have to forfeit the rights for your gay friends to marry. Oh, and we’re sending the DEA into Denver, too.” This may not be a good plan but props for ambition. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/90 "2015-07-09T01:56:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Not looting SS, looting millenials since Boomers have been underpaying into the fund and won’t get 100% of the promised benefits unless they tax younger workers more. > > And SS is a pretty significant issue for millenials in the sense that most think it won’t be there. It will be, but that generation will probably get less out than they pay in, whereas previous generations got more than they paid in. Current policy would pay out 80% of benefits. I’m no expert on SS but it seems to me that the issues have been two-fold: the size of the cohorts and the increase in longevity. On the first Millennials are an even larger cohort than are Boomers, so have more individuals to pay in, and on the latter, a) Boomers are also working longer so taking out less for that reason and putting more in before they take out (which also sucks for Millennials as the jobs don’t open) and b) Millennials may very well live longer yet and take more out from those who follow them! > [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > Do the Republicans actually have a plan for “saving” social security (saving in quotes because SS doesn’t really need saving)? … Aye there’s the rub. The rational approach, and one that I am personally in favor of, is to raise the age of benefit eligibility. Another of course is to decrease the size of the benefits. (Another, adding in a means testing for eligibility, will never fly as a GOP concept.) Problem is that while each of those might earn some millennial cred the cost in turning large numbers of GOP reliables into angry rabbles is huge. Even if the over 65s are grandfathered in they will feel it threatens them. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/91 "2015-07-09T02:07:54Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > I too am dying of curiosity to learn what steps the GOP are taking to win over millennials, a voting bloc that is strongly in favor of gay marriage, marijuana legalization and unfettered access to birth control. A group that is also struggling economically (whether that is the natural order of things or a worsening condition is an argument for another thread), which typically doesn’t endear it to Republican policies. > > So what’s the plan? “Don’t mind that other stuff, it won’t hurt much, and, besides, we’re going to kick out all the illegals to make things better for you?” See the [Pew Political Typology 2014](http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/appendix-1-typology-group-profiles/) – I guess they’ll have to go after the Young Outsiders. > [@](#): > > **Young Outsiders** > > 14% OF ADULT POPULATION, 15% OF REGISTERED VOTERS, 11% OF VERY ENGAGED > ◾49% Rep/Lean Rep (23% Rep, 26% Lean Rep); 35% Dem/Lean Dem > > **Basic description:** This relatively young, largely independent group holds a mix of conservative and liberal views. And while more lean toward the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, Young Outsiders express unfavorable opinions of both major parties. They are skeptical of activist government; a substantial majority views government as wasteful and inefficient. Yet they diverge from the two conservative typology groups – Steadfast Conservatives and Business Conservatives – in their strong support for the environment and many liberal social policies. > > **Defining values:** A large majority ofYoung Outsiders (81%) think “poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return.” That is among the highest share of any typology group. Two-thirds (66%) say government is doing too much to solve problems, while only about half as many (32%) want it to do more. Yet most Young Outsiders favor government action to protect the environment; 68% say stricter environmental laws are worth the cost. Majorities of Young Outsiders favor same-sex marriage (68%) and legalizing marijuana (67%), while 58% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. However, they also are strong supporters of gun rights. About six-in-ten (63%) say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns while just 35% think it is more important to control gun ownership. > > **Political attitudes:** In this fall’s midterms, Young Outsiders favor the Republican in their district by 53% to 33%. Yet they are not deeply engaged in politics. Only 42% say they follow what’s going on in politics and government most of the time, and just 30% know that Democrats have a majority in the Senate and that Republicans control the House. Young Outsiders have divided views of many political figures; no leading Republican is viewed more positively than negatively. > > **Who they are:** Young Outsiders are one of the youngest typology groups; 30% are under 30 and most are under 50. About three-quarters (73%) are non-Hispanic whites, and about as many are male (48%) as female (52%). They are relatively secure financially, for their age profile, and most (63%) say “paying the bills is generally not a problem.” > > **Lifestyle notes:** Young Outsiders are detached from religion as well as politics. Just 25% say they attend religious services at least weekly. Most Young Outsiders say it is important to live in a community with high quality public schools and where they can live near extended family. Relatively few place priority on living near people who share their religious faith (23%) or political views (18%). But the GOP won’t be able to attract that vote consistently until it sheds the Tea Party wing. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/92 "2015-07-09T14:34:48Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The rational approach, and one that I am personally in favor of, is to raise the age of benefit eligibility. Another of course is to decrease the size of the benefits. (Another, adding in a means testing for eligibility, will never fly as a GOP concept.) How is the first one “rational”, and how are others not? And why do you not list raising or removing the income cap, or indexing the rates, or applying the tax to unearned income as well or even preferentially? SS is about as regressive a tax as one could ever think of. Even if that was necessary for FDR to get it passed, the politics today are quite a bit different. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/93 "2015-07-09T15:49:26Z")
Okay, without getting into a deep SS debate on specifics, add in “raise more SS incoming revenues” as rational … specifically by accepting that it is a tax more than retirement plan. That formulation however sells better as a Democratic plan than as a GOP one, even if it is marketed as a “flat tax” (let alone making it functionally progressively indexed in some form). And it effectively means that as a generation the Millennials (the upcoming earners small and large alike) will still be funding the increasing SS demands of retiring Boomers who again, are living a long time and thereby “looting” the system. ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/94 "2015-07-09T20:50:48Z")
Jeb! Bush has been in a lot of hot water lately over his contention that Americans need to be working longer hours. I guess that appeals to some people, just not the disconnected privileged elite such as himself. Seriously, I just CANNOT understand who Jeb! actually appeals to, and it boggles my mind that he is supposedly the GOP frontrunner. I don’t know why ANYBODY would be gung-ho for a third Bush, but whatever. It was phenomenally stupid for him to assert that, however. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/95 "2015-07-10T00:29:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Then why did the Democrats suddenly develop a problem with midterms while Obama was President? They didn’t suddenly develop a problem. The mid-term elections usually go against the party in the White House. Quoth Wikipedia about the 2002 Congressional elections: “[T]his election was one of the few mid-term elections in the last one hundred years in which the party in control of the White House gained Congressional seats (the others were 1902, 1934, and 1998).” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/96 "2015-07-10T03:40:00Z")
OK, so why _did_ the Democrats suddenly develop a problem with midterms? He won’t let you get away with not answering the question. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/97 "2015-07-10T03:45:54Z")
He did answer it, and he’s right. Now someone go tell Democrats, because their excuse has been that Democrats don’t come out for midterms. But Democrats never did. It just seems worse because the last two general elections saw good Democratic turnout. But THAT’s the unusual event, not the midterms. Democrats are acting like the midterms are the anomaly, because well, it HAS to be. the alternative, that Democrats will continue to be apathetic with Obama not on the ticket, is too depressing. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/98 "2015-07-10T15:36:42Z")
Nonsense. The only political reality is that the country is more starkly polarized today. State and local elections are obviously hugely more responsive to extremes than the one national election in which the numbers will tend to equal out. Democrats do draw preferentially from voters who pay less attention to non-presidential elections. That will be a concern for them in 2018. But not 2016. I will remind adaher that he spent the entire 2011-2012 campaign insisting that 2010 was not an anomaly (the word I kept using) but a predictor of 2012. As I said earlier I am horrified by the looming certainly that he will reprise this nonsense about 2014 for the next 18 months as well. Could you please prove me wrong? I’ll be happy to be totally, absolutely wrong in this one case. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/99 "2015-07-10T15:40:23Z")
No, I don’t think 2014 is a predictor of 2016. But 2012 isn’t either. Clinton will not be bringing the Obama coalition with her anymore than John Kerry did. If she wins it will be because she won independent voters. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240/100 "2015-07-10T16:04:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, I don’t think 2014 is a predictor of 2016. But 2012 isn’t either. Clinton will not be bringing the Obama coalition with her anymore than John Kerry did. If she wins it will be because she won independent voters. And the mythologizing of “independent voters” continues. 2012 demonstrated that many or most “independent voters” still lean strongly towards one part or the other. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-the-gop-brand/724240.md?page=6)