Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Winning the Future: The Fiscal-Conservative Fantasy
American Thinker ^ | November 10, 2012 | Selwyn Duke

Posted on 11/10/2012 3:32:51 PM PST by neverdem

With the loss of the 2012 election, there is much talk of how the Republican Party must do some soul-searching. How will the GOP wage successful campaigns when demographic and cultural changes favor the opposition? Increasingly, the answer is that the party's party is over, that it must move into the future or be relegated to the past. "Dispense with the social issues!" we're counseled. "Don't trouble over abortion or faux marriage and instead just focus on fiscal matters."

Yet this appeal is the result of critics expressing what makes them uncomfortable, as opposed to actually observing the facts on the ground. How do I know? It's simple: the minority voters everyone is so desperate to woo are more socially conservative than are whites.

--snip--

Of course, some assume that traditionalist social positions are the problem because the GOP's touting them hasn't won over minorities. After all, such matters involve deeply held principle, right?

But this gets at the problem: the people in question find fiscal liberalism -- otherwise known as getting free stuff -- even more compelling (a few different kinds of prejudice factor into their preferences as well).

So you want to keep the GOP relevant? Here's a proposition. Let's woo that sought-after Hispanic voting block by offering the whole loaf: social conservatism and quasi-socialist policies...

--snip--

This America would be browner and bluer, but also likely less accepting of homosexuality and abortion. It would be too poor to finance the big social programs you want; however, while Big Brother might have to recede, he could be replaced by Big Daddy: society may well be more patriarchal. And if there's a huge influx of Muslims? Ha!.

Oh, you feminists will wail and gnash your teeth -- insofar as you're still around. But few of you will remain, given...

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

1 posted on 11/10/2012 3:32:56 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Adapt or die. With this last election we can no longer afford to run on traditional values, if we want the Democrats out of office. McCain got more votes than Romney! That statement should say it all.


2 posted on 11/10/2012 3:37:26 PM PST by johnd201 (johnd201)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnd201
McCain Sarah Palin got more votes than Romney!

That statement should say it all.

3 posted on 11/10/2012 3:39:42 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves" Month)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Dispense with the social issues!” we’re counseled. “Don’t trouble over abortion or faux marriage and instead just focus on fiscal matters.”

Yeah we should continue to talk about the 47% and when we’re in Ohio we should talk about how bad the auto bailout was. /sarc


4 posted on 11/10/2012 3:41:14 PM PST by ari-freedom (Election Day should be after Thanksgiving, not right after Halloween)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnd201

Yup. We need to field more pro-choice anti-gun Mormons. Huntsman 2016!


5 posted on 11/10/2012 3:43:51 PM PST by ari-freedom (Election Day should be after Thanksgiving, not right after Halloween)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I think we’re going to be confused for the next 4 years until someone figures out how to apply conservative principles to the poor areas and actually try to reach out to them. You can’t say “oh they have a safety net. Middle class more important.” when times are bad.


6 posted on 11/10/2012 3:47:47 PM PST by ari-freedom (Election Day should be after Thanksgiving, not right after Halloween)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Believe it or not, voters actually like fiscal conservatism. They don’t like the debts, don’t like the spending, and don’t like taxes. At this point, however, they’re not strongly convinced the GOP is serious about cuts and budgetary reforms.

And why should they be? It was fiscal conservatism that lead to the 2010 election sweep, and the GOP failed to deliver on what they were primarily voted in for.

Running on social values is the deluded fantasy. And it’s precisely what’s killing the GOP with younger voters in particular. I’m around people in their 20s and 30s quite a bit, and this is what I consistently hear from them they find alienating about the current GOP platform.


7 posted on 11/10/2012 3:49:53 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

My fear is the old adage about the rest of the country following California. It is a thoroughly corrupt, tyrannical, one party state.

Leftists control or dominate the three branches of the federal government, the media, our schools, popular culture, the military . . .

There is very little remaining that is unsoiled by the Left. They will attempt to do as they have in California, exterminate all opposition.


8 posted on 11/10/2012 3:50:16 PM PST by Jacquerie (Once a republic, now a democratic tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

We have passed the tipping point. There are more takers than givers. They will always vote for the most generous Santa. That will go on until, as a practical matter, the government can no longer print or borrow to fund the takers. Some variety of tyranny is next. History shows it is inevitable.


9 posted on 11/10/2012 3:51:00 PM PST by gleneagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Believe it or not, voters actually like fiscal conservatism. They don’t like the debts, don’t like the spending, and don’t like taxes. At this point, however, they’re not strongly convinced the GOP is serious about cuts and budgetary reforms.

And why should they be? It was fiscal conservatism that lead to the 2010 election sweep, and the GOP failed to deliver on what they were primarily voted in for.

Running on social values is the deluded fantasy. And it’s precisely what’s killing the GOP with younger voters in particular. I’m around people in their 20s and 30s quite a bit, and this is what I consistently hear from them regarding what they find alienating about the current GOP platform.


10 posted on 11/10/2012 3:51:10 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Compassionate conservatism is the only answer. Nobody is saying stop fighting social issues. Do it at state level. And, stop saying stupid things about rape and abortion. That is all.


11 posted on 11/10/2012 3:51:48 PM PST by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 7.8%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.

COSTELLO: You just said 7.8%.
ABBOTT: 7.8% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 7.8% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 14.7% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 7.8%.

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 7.8% or14.7%?
ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed.
You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who
look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out
of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks
of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less
unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how Obama gets it to 7.8%. Otherwise
it would be 14.7%. He doesn’t want you to read about 14.7% unemployment.

COSTELLO: That would be tough on his reelection.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to
bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier
of the two is to have Obama’s supporters stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like the Obama Economy Czar.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Obama.


12 posted on 11/10/2012 3:55:16 PM PST by mirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
>>>>McCain Sarah Palin got more votes than Romney!

Bingo.

13 posted on 11/10/2012 3:55:40 PM PST by GoodDay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger

This.

The GOP could become much more appealing to many more people by being proponents of states rights, particularly when it comes to addressing social issues.

And they’d actually be more Constitutionally consistent. Win-win.


14 posted on 11/10/2012 3:55:43 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
,/img>
15 posted on 11/10/2012 3:56:57 PM PST by Brandonmark (OWCM is The new American Minority!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
I'm not sure that's true at all.

Pat Caddell was a guest on a radio show last evening, and he was going absolutely ape-sh!t over the election results because of what he recognized as a thoroughly incompetent job by the Romney campaign.

He cited a remarkable statistic from some exit polling data, in which self-described "conservatives" outnumbered self-described "liberals" by a very wide margin. Remember -- these were people who had voted in the election, not just members of the general public.

Caddell's point was that Romney's loss can be mainly attributed to millions of people who went into the voting booths as "conservatives" and voted for Obama! That, he said, is the mark of a miserable sales job and a fatally flawed "brand" for Romney and the Republican Party.

There's nothing wrong with running a conservative candidate, folks. Most voters prefer it!

16 posted on 11/10/2012 3:59:01 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

In the new Arizona District 9 House race, Vernon Parker lost to Kyrsten Sinema, self-described “Prada socialist” who also is lesbian. Libertarian got about 7% of the vote....well beyond Sinema’s margin of victory in a 46% -45% race. Why? Parker tried to appeal to all sides and appear moderate. He was for MORE Pell grants, more pork barrel spending projects favored by business. but he also fully adopted the Republican platform of tax cuts for all, military buildup, etc. and thereby lost the “smaller government/balanced budget vote.”
The new Republican line of more spending and less taxes is obviously sounding old to voters these days and maybe if Republicans want more spending they must raise taxes to pay for it in the eyes of most voters.
But I think that increased military spending combined with tax cuts and cuts to Medicare and SS is a LOSING platform these days. People obviously don’t want to cut Medicare and SS cuts against more tax cuts and more miltary spending...which sounds to many people as if some people want other people to “sacrifice”, but not us.
Romney ran as a Ryan impersonator and Obama’s lies sounded more credible than “the math doesn’t add up” Republican platform, especially with SNL and Colbert and Maher and John Stewart and MSNBC and CNN and all the networks beating up on us.
Bill Clinton had an excuse to campaign against us this time, despite Obama’s bad record on deficits, because we did not have a believeable deficit reduction plan.


17 posted on 11/10/2012 4:02:02 PM PST by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The Republicans want everyone to have a chance to succeed .
The Democrats can’t let everyone succeed .
Who would clean their toilets and mop their floors?


18 posted on 11/10/2012 4:02:14 PM PST by lucky american (The Democrats will follow the big "D"even if it means going over a cliff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This is an interesting article. I agree with the author’s point that life is going to get very interesting for “lifestyle liberals” when their support of radical Islam reaches its sudden but inevitable conclusion.

As Mark Steyn pointed out, a social conservative can quietly live under the radar as Sharia blossoms (unless he’s too publically professing Christianity), but promiscuous women and open homosexuals are going to be uncomfortable.


19 posted on 11/10/2012 4:04:13 PM PST by Tax-chick ("Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up." ~marron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Why don’t the RINOs just switch over to the Demon-crat party and “adapt”...


20 posted on 11/10/2012 4:05:46 PM PST by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

There is no fiscal conservatism without values. The two go hand in hand. Any fiscal conservative who tells you values do not matter is lying. I do not care what your persuasion: Christain, secular, Buddhist or anything in between. If you work hard, pay your bills, educate and love your children then you live by personal values. Those values are pretty much the same for most of. There is not a lot of room for variation.


21 posted on 11/10/2012 4:06:28 PM PST by formosa (consider me galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Be careful reading too deep into what people self-describe as. Many claim themselves “conservative” or “liberal” yet may have wildly different ideas as to what these labels mean… some of this is due to the fact that conservative/liberal are such semantically mutilated and confused terms in the context of American politics.

If you go back through history not too far, and look at the philosophies underpinning the founding of the United States, it began as a liberal country—when at the time liberal meant an ethos of individual liberty, self-determination, and minimal government. Or what is now termed Libertarian.

The Progressives/Socialists misappropriated “liberal” for themselves at some point; and defenders of classical liberalism proper or libertarianism, became the “conservatives”, a word which usually implied “reactionary and traditionalist”… and it gets even more convoluted from there…

Oh, and as another example of why it’s good idea to be skeptical of what people self-describe as—I read a Gallup poll yesterday which says that 53% of Americans self-describe as pro-life, yet only 20% of Americans say they want abortion banned. And many here would say then that the only that 20% are the real pro-lifers.


22 posted on 11/10/2012 4:14:16 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Be careful reading too deep into what people self-describe as. Many claim themselves “conservative” or “liberal” yet may have wildly different ideas as to what these labels mean… some of this is due to the fact that conservative/liberal are such semantically mutilated and confused terms in the context of American politics.

If you go back through history not too far, and look at the philosophies underpinning the founding of the United States, it began as a liberal country—when at the time liberal meant an ethos of individual liberty, self-determination, and minimal government. Or what is now termed Libertarian.

The Progressives/Socialists misappropriated “liberal” for themselves at some point; and defenders of classical liberalism proper or libertarianism, became the “conservatives”, a word which usually implied “reactionary and traditionalist”… and it gets even more convoluted from there…

Oh, and as another example of why it’s good idea to be skeptical of what people self-describe as—I read a Gallup poll yesterday which says that 53% of Americans self-describe as pro-life, yet only 20% of Americans say they want abortion banned. And many here would say then that only this 20% are the real pro-lifers.


23 posted on 11/10/2012 4:14:37 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gleneagle
...as a practical matter, the government can no longer print or borrow to fund the takers.

Perhaps, as a practical matter, someone should spend a year's worth of campaign funds pointing out to them that mega trillions of debt and a noncontributing populace will put an end to any means of paying for all those goodies within the decade.

Oh, and when that happens, it'll be my .308 versus your .223 and I don't think the feds are handing those out to US residents.

Not yet anyway.

24 posted on 11/10/2012 4:26:47 PM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

OK. So what is going to be the name of your new third U.S. political party?


25 posted on 11/10/2012 4:36:04 PM PST by johnd201 (johnd201)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It’s over if we allow the Dem’s to rig the election, the lesson we should learn


26 posted on 11/10/2012 4:50:25 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mirkwood

LOL! And you’re showing our ages. Ugh.


27 posted on 11/10/2012 4:54:59 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: norton
Unfortunately, Tytler’s stages of democracy theorem has proven accurate. Once in dependency, no amount of logic, reason or education will keep the takers from voting for more goodies. It is human nature as now displayed in Greece. It is like asking a three year old to forego a candy today for two next week.

You are right on with your choice of caliber.

28 posted on 11/10/2012 4:56:54 PM PST by gleneagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: johnd201
Adapt or die. With this last election we can no longer afford to run on traditional values, if we want the Democrats out of office. McCain got more votes than Romney! That statement should say it all.

Jackass statement of the day!

If we become more like them, we'll lose worse.

And since the GOP doesn't like limited Government or fiscal conservatism either, how will the common voter distinguish between Republicans or Democrats?
29 posted on 11/10/2012 4:58:26 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

“And why should they be? It was fiscal conservatism that lead to the 2010 election sweep, and the GOP failed to deliver on what they were primarily voted in for.”

How could they? We have the biggest spending in human history in the White House!


30 posted on 11/10/2012 5:00:51 PM PST by WOSG (REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMA. He stole America’s promise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


The Place for Conservatives
Why Donate?
We are
Beholden to no one!



31 posted on 11/10/2012 5:01:20 PM PST by RedMDer (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty; Alberta's Child
If you go back through history not too far, and look at the philosophies underpinning the founding of the United States, it began as a liberal country—when at the time liberal meant an ethos of individual liberty, self-determination, and minimal government. Or what is now termed Libertarian.

No, not Libertarian, because those same patriots lived in states that had already passed laws against sodomy, among other "sins" described in the bible, and you will not find one peep out of any of the writings of the patriots against these type of laws. Something your Libertarians would be dead-set against.
32 posted on 11/10/2012 5:01:49 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
The GOP could become much more appealing to many more people by being proponents of states rights, particularly when it comes to addressing social issues.

Since at least 36 of the 50 states at this point have passed constitutional amendments against Gay Marriage, including one of the most Liberal, CA, I sincerely doubt this will make the GOP more marketable.

In fact, with a candidate that was strongly pro-life and against Gay Marriage, GWB, we one two elections.

Think how much better things would have turned out if Romney had NOT supported Abortion and the Gay Agenda.
33 posted on 11/10/2012 5:05:58 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

The latest is that Romney will beat McLame’s totals and equal Bush 43’s 2004 totals. Uncounted votes. Still 1/2 million in AZ alone.


34 posted on 11/10/2012 5:10:57 PM PST by chiller (Sky is the limit with max T-Partiers in the House and Senate to stifle the RINOs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
I meant Libertarian in the sense of emphasizing individual responsibility, no overbearing nanny-statism, etc. I didn't say condoning of Libertinism.

When the US was founded, there were indeed harsh penalties against sodomy (death, castration)… but nobody is going to win elections campaigning that such laws should be re-implemented. The majority of people in 2012 America are not comfortable with the idea of the Bible being a cornerstone of the law.
35 posted on 11/10/2012 5:46:06 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Well, like it or not, but Romney's expressed position on abortion happens to be consistent with the views of 75% of Americans according to a May 2012 Gallup poll:


Only 20% of Americans think abortion should be illegal without exception.

Even GW Bush stipulated that abortion was acceptable in the case of rape/incest/danger to mother's life.
36 posted on 11/10/2012 5:55:11 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
When the US was founded, there were indeed harsh penalties against sodomy (death, castration)… but nobody is going to win elections campaigning that such laws should be re-implemented. The majority of people in 2012 America are not comfortable with the idea of the Bible being a cornerstone of the law.

Don't be absurd.

Nobody, including myself, is advocating such nonsense, however, where Gay Marriage, and even the Gay Agenda parts that Mitt Romney chose to support this election cycle, Gays in the Military, Gays in the Boy Scouts and Gays Adopting, the overwhelming majority of his party, the GOP, do not support such positions.

This is one of the reasons Mitt Romney lost.

You don't insult your base, you don't support the things they consider sin, and then win the election.

Your suggestion, which amounts to little more than an attempt to walk away from the Social Issues, was proven an absolute disaster this election.

Why double-down on a failed course of direction?
37 posted on 11/10/2012 6:34:44 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: johnd201
Adapt or die. With this last election we can no longer afford to run on traditional values, if we want the Democrats out of office. McCain got more votes than Romney! That statement should say it all.

You are either a RINO or a Libertarian. Romney was more progressive leftist than McCain was.

I do not want Democrats out of office -I want leftists out of office EVEN GOP leftists!

38 posted on 11/10/2012 6:39:31 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
Only 20% of Americans think abortion should be illegal without exception.

Even GW Bush stipulated that abortion was acceptable in the case of rape/incest/danger to mother's life.


And yet there are recent polls that show that America at large, is getting more Pro-Life as we go along.

Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41%

If you look at polls in years before 2012 you'll see those gradually moving in the right direction. But there was a time when it was much greater than 50% in the wrong direction.

So, on an issue as important as the murdering of unborn babies, why would you not have us press the issue and continue to move the numbers in the right direction vs. the wrong direction?

Are you a Christian?

Do you consider yourself a conservative?
39 posted on 11/10/2012 6:40:08 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

As this excerpt articulates well 2014 the Demorats Pyrrhic 2012 win will consume them.

“...But all the dependency champions who celebrated on Tuesday night cannot stop the coming storm. The greatest advantage Obama had going into the election was not demography but the fact that the full consequences of his statist economic policies and his pro-jihadist foreign policy have not yet been felt.

Nationalized healthcare will only be fully implemented in 2014. Americans will only begin watching old men and women die because the federal government denied them lifesaving, but expensive treatments a year from now. They will only lose their doctors due to dwindling Medicare reimbursements in a year.

College students who got out the vote for Obama will only find themselves doomed to low-paying jobs and a life of indebtedness as they fail year in and year out to pay off their college loans, in a year or two. And by the time they realize what it means to be saddled with a national debt of $16 trillion, they will be locked into a government-controlled economy that requires them to keep their silence or lose their livelihoods...”

Full article: http://www.israpundit.com/archives/50569


40 posted on 11/10/2012 7:04:35 PM PST by CharlesMartelsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnd201; ROCKLOBSTER; ari-freedom; Jacquerie; gleneagle; indianrightwinger; Utmost Certainty; ...
The Case of the Missing White Voters

Setting aside completely the sometimes-considerable merits of various immigration reform measures, I think these analyses are off base. First, there are real questions about the degree to which immigration policies -- rather than deeper issues such as income and ideology -- drive the rift between the GOP and Latinos. Remember, passage of Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986 was actually followed two years later by one of the worst GOP showings among Latinos in recent history.

--snip--

If we build in an estimate for the growth of the various voting-age populations over the past four years and assume 55 percent voter turnout, we find ourselves with about 8 million fewer white voters than we would expect given turnout in the 2008 elections and population growth.

The GOPe and Romney blew it most likely with the white working class. With all the dead Mexicans from Fast and Furious, the Latino vote could have been more depressed, but I'm not aware of any effort by the Romney campaign to make them aware of Fast and Furious. With all of the blunders and idiocy in the Obama administration this election was Obama's to lose, but Romney lost.

41 posted on 11/10/2012 7:04:42 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Re: “The minority voters everyone is so desperate to woo are more socially conservative than are whites.”

Sorry, that is a total fantasy.

The author claims 75% of Hispanics oppose abortion.

Completely wrong.

After the 2010 election, Pew Research surveyed Hispanics on 12 key political issues.

Abortion came in at #10.

Nationally, the non-white abortion rate is twice as high as the white rate.

In California, the abortion rate for Hispanics is higher than the rate for Blacks, and both are well above the white rate.

In California, Hispanics opposed same sex marriage because they are openly anti-gay, just like American Blacks.

The political salvation for Conservatives will come by converting white voters and increasing our turnout.

As the Democrat Party begins to look more and more like South Africa, that will get easier and easier.

42 posted on 11/10/2012 7:07:44 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesMartelsGhost

Thanks for the link.


43 posted on 11/10/2012 7:08:59 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

You really are at the wrong forum, your anti-conservative trolling is a joke.

Post after post of you telling us that we need to stop the conservatism because it is outdated and out of style and won’t win over liberals.


44 posted on 11/10/2012 7:16:14 PM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
Those are some very good points. The more I think about it, the more I realize that "conservative" and "liberal" are very much subjective descriptions when asked in the context of a poll question.

Here's something else to consider:

One of the flaws of the GOP's campaign against Obama was that it was based on assertions that were -- surprisingly -- verifiably false. For example, the GOP has been painting Obama as a president who is hell-bent on raising taxes -- and that would seem like something that's beyond question. And yet here we are in late 2012 ... more than a decade after most of the "Bush tax cuts" were implemented ... and more than seven years after Barack Obama begain railing against those tax cuts as a U.S. Senator from Illinois ... and those Bush tax rates are still in place.

45 posted on 11/10/2012 7:45:57 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
“A spontaneous order is a system which has developed not through the central direction or patronage of one or a few individuals but through the unintended consequences of the decisions of myriad individuals each pursuing their own interests through voluntary exchange, cooperation, and trial and error. This process of spontaneous evolution is not restricted to explaining the growth of the economic order but can also account for the development of language, money, culture, law, social conventions and even morals and ethics. Although the spontaneous order develops through individuals pursuing their own interest, the individuals still behave by following commonly held rules rather than by acting in a random fashion, and these rules are themselves the product of evolution.” –Friedrich A. Hayek

It is ironic that you quote this on your page YET apparently have no concept of what it means? RE:

Running on social values is the deluded fantasy. And it’s precisely what’s killing the GOP with younger voters in particular. I’m around people in their 20s and 30s quite a bit, and this is what I consistently hear from them they find alienating about the current GOP platform.

I suggest more Hayek for you -maybe you will finally "get it"?

The Constitution of Liberty: Friedrich A. Hayek

46 posted on 11/10/2012 7:52:09 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; Utmost Certainty

Good point, SoConPubbie. But I wonder if those early anti-sodomy laws were passed almost as if they were nothing more than a formality to codify something that those people considered self-evident ... almost like laws that outlawed suicide (WTF?). I can’t imagine those laws were passed to address some kind of pressing need back in the 1790s, can you? LOL.


47 posted on 11/10/2012 8:24:39 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

“Jackass statement of the day!
If we become more like them, we’ll lose worse.”

No disagreement with you there.

But — what are you going to do about the new “ladyparts voters”? (I take the claim for this new term)
70% of them voted for the ‘rats. They are a growing demographic (young, single women).

And they are but one of several growing demographic groups on the other side.

The right has a real problem here. The country is dividing, and the people “on the left” are growing in numbers, while the people “on the right” aren’t (in fact, many conservatives are from the World War II generation and on the verge of dying off).

Conservatives are waging a war of attrition. Unfortunately, it’s our side that is attritin’ more rapidly!


48 posted on 11/10/2012 8:26:30 PM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gleneagle
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville

...and Tytler too.

49 posted on 11/10/2012 8:39:24 PM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Heh, that’s actually a really good point re: many in the GOP painting Obama as a tax-raising fiend given the fact that he hasn’t actually done this (yet).

I suppose a counterpoint at least, is he does often talk about upping taxes “bla bla millionaires billionaires fair share bla bla”. And I do believe he’d raise taxes of course given decent political cover (i.e. 2nd term)… but, since he hadn’t actually done so, perhaps in some way this made Obama’s naysayers look the fool for being klaxons on this issue in the eyes of those without strong opinions about Obama, which may’ve hurt the process of building a case against him.

Arguably there’s a lot of echo chamber effect / bunker mentality among GOP voters, such that everyone’s mutually agreeing with and reinforcing antipathies against Obama, which causes us to lose perspective on the fact that… other non-Democrat voters may not feel quite the same as we do.


50 posted on 11/10/2012 8:45:10 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson