# The Republicans’ long term strategy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2005, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-long-term-strategy/332368 "2005-11-23T02:12:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2005, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-long-term-strategy/332368/21 "2005-11-25T08:29:58Z")
**David, God of Frogs** wrote > [@](#): > > There is no such thing as a free market religion. Historically those two ideas come from seperate sources, and they do actually clash on certain social issues. With the Democrats, on the other hand, well, liberalism and neo-liberalism do have an obvious historical connection. They share the general understanding that money is a measure of well-being, they just disagree on how best to increase it. I have no idea what that means, and even less idea what it has to do with Republicans focusing on the ends and Democrats focusing on the means (as you claim.) > [@](#): > > Well, besides Evil One’s cite, this one (scroll down) shows that Bush’s support in the 2004 election came disproportionately from people with no college degree. > > This can be explained by the Republicans’ reliance on religion and patriotism instead of more substantial policy ideas, and like I mentioned before the contrast between their small government rhetoric and their actions. Let’s look at your own cite, since a) I don’t see how **Evil One** ’s cite validates your point, and because your cite is your cite. Even a quick glance at those numbers invalidates your idea that Republicans won because of the stupid (your word) vote. a) Amongst those with the least education measured (no high school), Kerry enjoyed the advantage. I’m not sure where you draw this line of who’s stupid and who’s not in your claim, but clearly if the line is “least educated according to CNN’s poll on the Bush/Kerry election”, Democrats enjoyed the stupid vote. b) Yes it’s true that if you draw the stupd line based on college degree vs. no college degree, Republicans win. But this is artificial, because Kerry was heavily loaded by votes from those with postgrad studies. In the case of college graduates, those with some college, and those with high school diplomas, Bush was the clear winner. So, if you drop the stupid line down to some college vs. no college, you find that Bush won in both camps, i.e. stupid and non-stupid (again, your term): ```auto Bush Kerry Nader No College (26%) 52% 47% 0% Some College (74%) 51% 48% 1% ``` Do you have any other backing to this claim that Reps win by virtue of claiming the “stupid vote”? ---
**Author:** ![Muad\_Dib](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/35a633/32.png) [@Muad\_Dib](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muad_Dib)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2005, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-long-term-strategy/332368/22 "2005-11-25T08:35:11Z")
> [@David](#): > > They do tend to be the recipients of the stupid people vote which, despite its obvious benefits, is also vulnerable to changes in pop culture. Congratulations on giving people a good reason to disregard your opinions on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![David\_God\_of\_Frogs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David\_God\_of\_Frogs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_God_of_Frogs)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-long-term-strategy/332368/23 "2005-11-25T18:57:17Z")
> [@Bill H.](#): > > Even a quick glance at those numbers invalidates your idea that Republicans won because of the stupid (your word) vote. > > a) Amongst those with the least education measured (no high school), Kerry enjoyed the advantage. I’m not sure where you draw this line of who’s stupid and who’s not in your claim, but clearly if the line is “least educated according to CNN’s poll on the Bush/Kerry election”, Democrats enjoyed the stupid vote. > b) Yes it’s true that if you draw the stupd line based on college degree vs. no college degree, Republicans win. But this is artificial, because Kerry was heavily loaded by votes from those with postgrad studies. In the case of college graduates, those with some college, and those with high school diplomas, Bush was the clear winner. So, if you drop the stupid line down to some college vs. no college, you find that Bush won in both camps, i.e. stupid and non-stupid (again, your term): > > ```auto > > Bush Kerry Nader > No College (26%) 52% 47% 0% > Some College (74%) 51% 48% 1% > > ``` > > Do you have any other backing to this claim that Reps win by virtue of claiming the “stupid vote”? a) people with no high school education made up only 4% of the vote. The postgrads made up four times as much of the vote, and voted Democrat with a 5 point greater margin. b) You have to adjust all those numbers by the fact that Bush beat Kerry by an overall margin of 53%-47%. When you do that, it becomes clear that a _disproportionate_ number of conservative voters had less education, and in a _future_ election where the popular vote is closer, it might very well come down to the uneducated vote. (And all of this is magnified by the electoral college. Do you really need a cite that rural people tend not to be as educated?) This really isn’t that controversial. It’s acknowledged by both sides, hence the phrase ‘liberal elite.’ ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2005, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-long-term-strategy/332368/24 "2005-11-25T22:12:56Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > So the eeeeeeeevil eeeeeeeeeeevil Democrats and “their” defense cuts enabled 9/11. Yep, it all makes sense to me. I didn’t say that. My point is that the public saw how much of a priority national defense spending was to both sides. And when security over all other considerations became the issue after 9/11, the Democrats paid for their choice. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-long-term-strategy/332368/25 "2005-11-25T22:29:00Z")
They will/are using the age old political tactic of ‘create an enemy that unify people behind you to fight that enemy’. I have never read Machiavelli but I bet he wrote on that subject. It was also covered a bit in the book the Lucifer Principle where politicians from the 1950s used racial desegregation as the boogeyman of choice. The idea is to essentially exaggerate an external enemy (and his/her threats) and say that only you can protect people from him/her. It is no coincidence that political support for a president jumps to 80-90% when a war starts. In 2004 they used gay marraige for this purpose. I woudn’t be suprised if ‘judicial activism’ is the boogeyman of 2006 or 2008. I have no idea what the next boogeyman will be though. Illegal immegration makes for a crappy boogeyman as the Bush admin hasn’t done much about it and has a poor track record. Terrorism, naturally, will be on the agenda. So will ‘the liberals are trying to destroy america’s value system, vote for us and we’ll protect it’. Come to think of it this was discusses pretty thouroughly in a book I recently read called [what’s the matter with kansas](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080507774X/102-1924655-5059302?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance). The author talks about how people in Kansas vote Republican due to threats to their values (gun rights, gay rights, abortion, etc) then the republicans keep the minimum wage low and do other things that hurt people in Kansas, who are mostly poor. The author also talks about how 100 years ago Kansas was a very radical left wing state and now it is the heart of conservative country. Democrats on the other hand offer more utopian agendas. “Vote for me and you’ll get a higher minimum wage” doesn’t have the gut reaction as “Vote for me or else terrorists will bomb your city”. ---
**Author:** ![Sweet\_Mercury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@Sweet\_Mercury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sweet_Mercury)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-long-term-strategy/332368/26 "2005-11-25T22:29:35Z")
> [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Well, sure. I like McCain a lot more than I like most Democrats, for example. But he’s the exception. > > Anyway, my first reply was just being glib. Apologies. No apologies necessary. I didn’t mean to sound accusitory, if I did, then I apologize for that. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > As for a serious look at the OP, I really don’t think political parties look at “long term” in any way that is meaningful for this discussion because theirs is such a transient occupation. Most offices have term limits and those that do not tend to be in localized offices whose jurisdictions rarely make huge party changes in the short term. More likely, they look at the next election coming up and attempt to either win the winnable and set up those races of the future when they are not winnable. > > Additionally, politicians are quite adept at reacting to changes in public opinion. To use an extreme example, if Strom Thurmond was looking towards his long term political prospects as a segregationalist, he would have been sadly mistaken. But more subtle switches in public opinion happen all the time, making it hard for any long term strategy to remain unchanged for any meaningful length of time. Agreed. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Maybe I’m mistaken but most politicians just want to be right today. Whether today is the approval of them while they’re in office or while they’re running doesn’t matter. And I feel that the two major Political Parties feel the same way. > > I think things are different for third parties where the long term goal of simply spreading the message and getting more people aware of what they stand for is important but for the two main parties, they don’t have to do that. I agree with this as well. I have gotten into several arguments with people over the value of voting 3rd party. I honestly have never gotten any other reason than the usual, “You’re wasting your vote!” or “A vote for [third party liberal] is really a vote for [mainstream conservative]!” I could go on about this, but that would be hijiacking. You get my point I am sure 🙂 . ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-long-term-strategy/332368/27 "2005-11-25T22:41:00Z")
Quoth **Evil One** : > [@](#): > > Second, they are the party that primarily represents the haves rather than the have nots. (Although GWB has increased social spending significantly). There are still more haves than have nots in this country and they will vote their wallets. By what definition of “have” and “have not” is it mathematically possible to have more of the former than of the latter? The most reasonable definitions I can come up with for those two terms guarantee either equal amounts of both, or a greater number of have-nots. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-long-term-strategy/332368/28 "2005-11-26T01:41:15Z")
**David, God of Frogs** wrote > [@](#): > > This really isn’t that controversial. It’s acknowledged by both sides, hence the phrase ‘liberal elite.’ Defending your ridiculous proposition with the claim that it’s common knowledge is not an argument. Do you have any facts or not? Can you find one reasonable leader among Republicans that says they control almost the whole of the United States Government because they pandered to the “stupid vote”? Where’s this acknowledgement you claim? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-long-term-strategy/332368/29 "2005-11-26T01:57:13Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > I didn’t say that. > > My point is that the public saw how much of a priority national defense spending was to both sides. And when security over all other considerations became the issue after 9/11, the Democrats paid for their choice. And what pray tell could a manly GOP-funded defense could have done to stop 9/11? The GOP has the _appearance_ of being strong on defense, that’s all. In reality, neither party in power would have stopped 9/11, either party would have gone after the Taliban, and only GWB would have invaded Iraq. You can talk about how tough you are, you can wear a flight jacket to speak, but in the end what counts is did you make the country safer? The Iraq war has made the US much less safe. GWB and the GOP have failed the country miserably on defense. ---
**Author:** ![David\_God\_of\_Frogs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David\_God\_of\_Frogs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_God_of_Frogs)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-long-term-strategy/332368/30 "2005-11-26T02:17:46Z")
> [@Bill H.](#): > > Defending your ridiculous proposition with the claim that it’s common knowledge is not an argument. Do you have any facts or not? Care to respond to the rest of that post? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2005, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-long-term-strategy/332368/31 "2005-11-26T03:15:19Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > And what pray tell could a manly GOP-funded defense could have done to stop 9/11? The GOP has the _appearance_ of being strong on defense, that’s all. In reality, neither party in power would have stopped 9/11, either party would have gone after the Taliban, and only GWB would have invaded Iraq. You can talk about how tough you are, you can wear a flight jacket to speak, but in the end what counts is did you make the country safer? The Iraq war has made the US much less safe. GWB and the GOP have failed the country miserably on defense. I’m beginning to think that you are deliberately refusing to comprehend my point. I’m not saying that 9/11 could have been prevented by anything the Republicans could have done over the last 30 years. I AM saying that the Democrats have chosen over the last 30 years to represent constituencies and priorities other than the Defense Department. Hence, when 9/11 happened, voters took note. Like it or not, tough defense talk from most Democrats is not taken seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2005, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-long-term-strategy/332368/32 "2005-11-26T04:13:02Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > I’m beginning to think that you are deliberately refusing to comprehend my point. I’m not saying that 9/11 could have been prevented by anything the Republicans could have done over the last 30 years. > > I AM saying that the Democrats have chosen over the last 30 years to represent constituencies and priorities other than the Defense Department. Hence, when 9/11 happened, voters took note. > > Like it or not, tough defense talk from most Democrats is not taken seriously. This is somewhat true. On the other hand talk of helping the poor and downtrodden by republicans is not taken seriously either. By and large though I don’t think that this matters much for voting. Do you feel that voting for senators, representatives and governors was affected by terrorism? I don’t. For the presidental vote, yeah sure I think that terrorism helped the republicans. but I doubt many people changed their votes for their house representatives or governors because of terrorism. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-long-term-strategy/332368.md?page=1)