Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 02/17/2012 7:42:05 PM PST by writer33
If you're a Republican in New York or another big city, you may be anxious or even terrified at the prospect that Rick Santorum, the supposedly unelectable social conservative, may win the GOP presidential nomination. Jeffrey Bell would like to set your mind at ease.
Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, "The Case for Polarized Politics," has a winning track record for the GOP. "Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964," he observes. "The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections."
The Democrats who won, including even Barack Obama in 2008, did not play up social liberalism in their campaigns. In 1992 Bill Clinton was a death-penalty advocate who promised to "end welfare as we know it" and make abortion "safe, legal and rare." Social issues have come to the fore on the GOP side in two of the past six presidential elections—in 1988 (prison furloughs, the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU) and 2004 (same-sex marriage). "Those are the only two elections since Reagan where the Republican Party has won a popular majority," Mr. Bell says. "It isn't coincidental."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
For those interested.
Interesting read. Thanks.
[ Among states that last voted Republican in 1988 or earlier, he classifies two, Michigan and Pennsylvania, as socially conservative, and two more, Minnesota and Wisconsin, as “mildly” so. That adds up to 35 states, with 348 electoral votes, in which social conservatism is an advantage. A socially liberal Republican nominee might win more votes in California and New York—places where the GOP has declined as the country has become more polarized—but his prospects of carrying either would still be minuscule. ]
This is an interesting article.
Interesting article. I do think Santorum needs to defend himself more vigorously against the media’s attempts to paint him as a theocratic busybody. Hell, that describes Obama better than anybody else, with his foisting of liberation theology on the nation.
Social conservatism is pretty unpopular around here these days. All of the sudden being pro-life isn’t compatible with conservatism.
Poppycock!
Yeah, but. The last time he ran in a general election in PA, he lost by over 18 points. As a sitting Senator.
If the demographics of the other three are similar I would guess he has an uphill battle in all four.
“If you’re a Republican in New York or another big city...”
Snicker, snicker.
Anyway, I’ve been pointing out for decades that the candidate (of either party) that appears to the most conservative always wins. In every recent election up 2008, that was easy. 2008 is iffy - Obama did outflank McCain on TARP by not panicking and suspending his campaign. But overall, 2008 was a ‘making history’ year, where even Obama’s opponent was so enthralled by him, that he would have been happier running as Obama’s VP.
“Yeah, but. The last time he ran in a general election in PA, he lost by over 18 points. As a sitting Senator.”
10 points of that was because it was a Republican blowout that year, with Pelosi taking the House. The other 8 points, at least, was because of Specter. If Rick starts winning major primaries, then 2006 is long in the past.
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.