The Republican party is in a shambles

[Lamar_Mundane]

@dalej42

The first thing the Republicans should do is distance themselves from the anti-immigration crowd. The Democrats have been trying to wake that Latino sleeping giant. The Republicans are becoming very much the party of the South and rural West. Listening to Republicans rant about illegal immigration reminds people of their grandfather blaming everything on Mexicans.

Mormon West is more accurate. It’s basically Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. The rest of the mountain west, especially, has been turning to the dems for years now.

I saw some numbers today that show just how much the Republican Party is a southern regional party. They are completely out of synch with the rest of the nation.
**
Favorable Unfavorable**

Obama

Northeast 89 9
South 48 46
Midwest 77 20
West 78 18

**Democratic Party **

NE 71 21
SO 43 53
MW 61 33
W 62 31

Republican Party

NE 12 79
SO 49 49
MW 30 66
W 30 68

This is from Research2000.

ETA:

GEOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN:

Northeast:
DC, ME, VT, NY, MD, PA, CT, DE, MA, NH, RI, WV, NJ

South:
FL, NC, SC, AL, MS, GA, VA, TN, KY, LA, AR, TX

Midwest:
IL, MN, MI, OH, WI, IA, MO, KS, IN, ND, SD, OK, NE

West:
NM, CA, OR, WA, AK, HI, MT, ID, UT, NV, AZ, WY, CO

[ElvisL1ves]

FL is only partly a Southern state, and by now the same is true of VA. What happens if you take them out?

I’ve seen other county-by-county maps (sorry, no link) that narrow it down further - the Republicans are dominant only in the Appalachians. The cities and suburbs go Dem in any region.

[Voyager]

I’d also be interested in the West with CA, OR and WA taken out. CA itself overwhelmingly tilts things to Obama and the Dems.

[MerryMagdalen]

@Voyager

I’d also be interested in the West with CA, OR and WA taken out. CA itself overwhelmingly tilts things to Obama and the Dems.

Here is a map of Washington’s breakdown in the presidential race, by county. Removing King, Pierce and Snohomish might have swung the race the other way; I didn’t do the math, and am only guessing on the basis that they’re the most populous. King (where Seattle is) went overwhelmingly for Obama.

The governor’s race was 53.24% D to 46.76% R.

[Cyberhwk]

@MerryMagdalen

Removing King, Pierce and Snohomish might have swung the race the other way;

Well YEAH…provided you removed 48% of Washington’s population!

[TooSchoolforCool]

@IdahoMauleMan

I am actually asserting that. I am pointing to the evidence of

• lower tax rates, and a more simplified tax structure, as increasing tax revenues following the Bush tax cuts and the Reagan tax act

The picture is not that simplistic though, most importantly because economies grow and shrink for MANY other factors and cycles than just tax policy. Again, check the cites to economists, both conservative and liberal, disputing that the effect here is causal (it also generally involves some very arbitrary and easily massaged choices in what years you are deciding to look at, forgetting that Reagan raised taxes, etc.). It also doesn’t make much sense in terms of macroeconomics.

Cutting taxes should increase overall growth (i.e. social welfare), but for virtually all situations and models the size of that growth is not going to be big enough to make up for the loss of in the tax revenue you would have gotten if neither tax cuts nor that extra growth occurred. The Laffer curve was far more plausibly relevant when marginal rates were absurdly high. But they are historically far lower than they were during, say, the 60s, where some were as high as 90%.

Note that, rather amazingly though, many people that pay and complain these taxes don’t even seem to understand how they work, so maybe there’s the possibility that they’re doing irrational things in response to them.

• The long-term trend of government revenues that equal approximately 18% of GDP, through wildly varying tax regimes. Suggesting that finding the tax rate that maximizes GDP growth is optimal. I would find it curious if someone argued that higher taxes stimulated GDP growth.

Of course taxes don’t stimulate growth: they retard it. That’s the cost of taxation. That still doesn’t mean that you can get more money from the public by asking for less of it.

Opposing points to my argument include the marginal tinkering at the higher end during the Clinton years, which didn’t seem to damp income tax receipts all that much. It’s something definitely worth debating.

It’s sort of been pretty well hashed out: what you’re suggesting was dubbed “voodoo economics.” Various Republicans and conservative pundits occasionally still make the suggestion, though never entirely clearly, and often they claim that wasn’t what they were really saying. Again, because most economists who have looked at the question simply don’t buy it.