On what issues do you think Republicans should change to appeal to these voters?
It’s less about issues and more about respect. Republicans need to get away from the culture wars. On issues, at least in theory, every taxpaying American should be open to the GOP message. We’ve got some pretty well off groups voting against us because they are repulsed by the Republicans on social and cultural issues. In recent years the GOP has made progress in winning back some of those voters. As the cite in my OP states, the GOP is winning more of the professional white collar vote, as well as middle class Latinos. 2014 showed what can be accomplished when we avoid saying really dumb, disrespectful stuff for a whole campaign.
Maybe if they stopped doing things like taking away the rights of Gays and Lesbians in Kansas, people might actually believe they’re changing.
So do the Democrats. They need to refocus on economic populism and fighting the plutocracy. It’s a matter of priorities. Same-sex marriage and pot will be legal in every state eventually, real gun control won’t happen in this generation no matter what anyone does, but the power of the 1% matters.
The problem is that there are way too few Elizabeth Warrens, Bernie Sanders’ and Alan Graysons and way too many Andrew Cuomos and Chuck Shumers. As the Republican party moved right so did the Democratic party and there is no lefty version of the Tea Party attempting to drag the party even further to the opposite side (which can be debated as a good thing) and I don’t think any of the more prominent truly Progressive candidates would stand a chance of winning even if they did run, which seems unlikely.
One of the things that makes me madder than a bag of agitated hornets are the cries of “both parties are the same,” because it’s lazy and wrong and there are enough meaningful differences between the parties that it’s simply wrong. But I do concede that when it comes to the affect that money has had on politicians that both sides are complicit and guilty - though at least there are a few Democrats that one can point to who stand out in the positive sense here.
The Cllintonistas. The “business-friendly”, “centrist”, menshevik, Clintonistas remade the Democratic Party to get some of that sweet, sweet corporate donations. And it worked, I guess. Sorta. Kinda. Yay.
But there is some hope on the horizon, the rise of small donation politics. I sent five bucks to Lizzy, five bucks to another couple of candidates in close races. So did millions of other people. Power to the people! (Hey, that would make a pretty good slogan! Make a better reality, but still, damned good slogan!)
Even without the corporate Wall Street donations there’s still the reality that to the extent the Democrats win white voters, it’s mainly well off coastal professionals. A conservative columnist called them HENRYs(Have Enough Not Rich Yet). Socially liberal but won’t tolerate their taxes being raised. I think that has more to do with Democrats focusing more on social issues(plus environmental issues) than Wall Street donations. The Democrats can’t afford to alienate HENRYs. Plus these voters are Democrat primarily because they are repulsed by the religious and cultural right. Focus mainly on economic issues and their reasons for voting Democrat vanish.
Don’t make very good foot soldiers, though, do they? The comfortable and content, who are not rich yet, but have great expectations. Not like the knuckle walking Bible thumpers and Scriptural screwballs, they got the fire in the belly.
And the Republican Party just kisses them goodbye, then? Or offer them consolation prizes, “Vote for us and at least they won’t be able to force your kids to get gay married!” “We’ll make them at least mention Creationism!”. Lot of 'em, you know. Some folks claim at least half of the reliable Republican voting base. Adios, arrividerci, don’t let the screen door embutten you…
It’s a bold plan, adaher! Should a position in the Supreme Strategic Council of the Republican Party be open, you should put your name forward. I have no doubt that many of us here would be more than happy to write e-mails of enthusiastic approval and support! Hell, I’ll write ten of them myself!
Why do you continually think that you have some special insight into the motivations of Democrats and liberals? Seriously. If you want to know, please, please ask. You’re not a mind-reader.
Yeah – but then the Dems can win back the white working class.
I would agree that this demographic exists, but this characterization is not exactly right. Speaking only for myself, I’ll tolerate my taxes being raised if they are being spent in ways that I believe are socially valuable. Give us single-payer healthcare and free higher education for all, and watch us cheerfully write checks for higher marginal taxes. Of course, we are all for taxing those richer than ourselves, as it should be.
The Republicans don’t have any economic issues that aren’t underpinned by reactionary religious and cultural policy. It’s still a modern version of Atwater’s Southern Strategy, which if you’ve forgotten works something like this:
[QUOTE=Lee Atwater]
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
[/quote]
I think we’d all love for the Republicans to stop focusing on “economic issues”. Please, remove those abstractions from your party platform and tell me what you have left over. I’m sure I’d consider voting for it.
True. If both parties focus on economic issues then the redneck vote doesn’t have much of a reason to stay Republican and the HENRY vote doesn’t have much reason to stay Democratic.
Why do you think this (the bolded part)? As iiandyiiii pointed out, you do not have any special insight into the motivations of liberal voters. Could it be that some voters will vote against their economic interests for non-economic reasons? After all, the GOP has been absolutely depending on it.
Sure it’s possible but I’m not trying to read minds here. The HENRY vote has been shifting Republican already, that’s part of the reason Democrats’ predictions of demographic dominance aren’t happening yet. And given the growth in that demographic, they can’t actually ever win without them. I may not be right, but I’m certainly within my rights to at least guess why that vote is shifting towards the GOP since 2008. This is what Judis says about these voters:
This is a pretty major swing group. It’s a large group and it tends towards large swings in voting behavior. If this is indeed the most important demographic to win in elections, it’s understandable why Democrats focus on social issues instead of economic populism. They need HENRYs to win, so ixnay on the axtay.
It’s all about turnout. For the last few years, midterms can’t be compared to Presidential years. If the Democrats can get good turnout, they win. It’s as simple as that. If they don’t, the Republicans will win.
Well, see post #117 and post #147. HENRYs is just another name for the middle class, which apparently has been trending Pub recently based on (perceived, perhaps misperceived) economic interests alone.
Not a bit surprised, they are shrinking and nervous. Very vulnerable to the message: Everything for you would be just dandy if the government wasn’t taking all your money and giving it to lazy layabouts and illegal immigrants.
To be honest, BG, after adaher’s threads outlining the dark clouds of doom, I wonder if the Democratic Party will even make it to the next elections!
It could also be that Obama brought a unique coalition and the midterm demographic makeup is the norm when Obama is not on the ticket. I guess we’ll know for sure in 2016.