Would a party split benefit the Republicans?

[CountDeMoney]

I agree the social issues are important, for sure. But my point is you drop abortion and gay marriage, maybe that would give Romney just enough of a boost in say, young white voters and other white voters to win the election. But dumping those issues does not, I don't think, improve his vote in the black or Hispanic communities. There was an analysis out there by some Republican today where he pointed out if you take the "unassailable" coalition of black and latino that Obama had, plus his very strong group of young voters that's 35% of the electorate before anything else is even looked at. Romney could have trimmed it down a little bit, as ostensibly you could get some young white voters coming your way by dropping the social stuff...but I do think it goes back to getting 3% of the black vote and 30% of the Hispanic vote. I don't know that anything much matters with those margins, you're losing.

I don't think dumping them would be completely necessary by the party: the conservative positions on certain social issues is as attractive to voters as their opposites with liberal agendas.  Poppy, Dole and Dubya ran a GOP that had those social issues under their umbrella as much as Romney did. 

However, they knew when to raise the curtain on them, and they knew when not to flaunt it--and when to keep other members of the party from going off the reservation and message by opening their mouths and fanning the flames.  The GOP can have their stances on issues, it's important to them.  But they don't have to use a megaphone and a laser pointer to put them to the forefront when it's not necessary.

This election was to be about the economy;  every day the Romney campaign wasn't talking about the economy--and letting the goofs they couldn't control take the news cycle away from it--was a day they lost.  And picking a Veep nomination known as much for his social issues positions as much as, if not more so, than his economic policies didn't help.

I think a substantial segment of independent voters would've sided with Romney despite their positions on social issues, and that includes decent percentage of minorities as well.  People don't mind crossing the aisle on social issues--and for this discussion, I include immigration as a social issue for Latinos--as long as parties and candidates don't portray themselves as unconscionably intolerable zealots. 

Substantial percentages of minorities can be won by the GOP as long as 1) you actually treat them as participatory citizens on some issues that can tangibly impact them, and 2) you don't scare the living hell out of them.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I was actually reflecting today just how much better Bush was at campaigning than Romney. Now, I don't think Bush was doing campaign strategy himself but he had a far better ran campaign in both '00 and '04.

Looking back, Bush was able to get all the fundamentalists, not just to begrudgingly vote for him but to fall in love with him. He did that without antagonizing other groups too much directly. Bush was really good at being magnanimous personally and keeping his hands clean, and letting back alley men do the dirty stuff (like getting gay marriage amendments on the ballot to drum up conservative turnout in battleground states.) Bush knew how to get religious conservatives happy with "nothing" issues like his "faith based initiatives" that, while most people found them stupid, they weren't something most people gave a shit about. But it gave the religious right a hard on. Stuff like gay marriage isn't like that, it's a thing you can rail on to get that same demographic but not without alienating some people.

I was looking over the 2004 exit polls and am just stunned by how much stronger Bush was in non-mainstream GOP groups:

44% of Latinos
52% of people who supported civil unions for gays (22% for those wanting full marriage, and 70% for those wanting no rights in this regard)
45% of 18-29

[dps]

45% of 18-29

That's not really all that good.  From 1972 through 1988 IIRC, the Republican Presidential candidate carried that age group every time (to the shock of Democratic strategists, which was understandable in 1972, but you'd think that by the 80s they'd have gotten used to it).

[celedhring]

Latinos are a very conservative group, in a normal world they should staunchly vote Republican. George and Jeb Bush understood that and were very careful with their immigration rhetoric and policies. Seems the current GOP have completely forgotten that.

[Sheilbh]

I think it's overly reductive to just talk about immigration with the Hispanic vote though.  The Republicans don't have a healthcare policy, they have a vague economic policy and (fairly or not) have been painted as a party who's mainly wanting to help the rich.  I think they need to address those areas as well as immigration to get non-Cuban Hispanic (is there any more doleful phrase to Republican ears?) votes.

[CountDeMoney]

I think it's overly reductive to just talk about immigration with the Hispanic vote though.  The Republicans don't have a healthcare policy, they have a vague economic policy and (fairly or not) have been painted as a party who's mainly wanting to help the rich.  I think they need to address those areas as well as immigration to get non-Cuban Hispanic (is there any more doleful phrase to Republican ears?) votes.

Yeah, but it all starts with immigration.  Healthcare and other issues are secondary when the primary concern is whether you're going to have to stew in a detention center for 2 years awaiting your deportation hearing.

And Cuban Latinos are going to dissipate over time as a GOP crutch as its demographics get older.  May have mattered in 1988 when there were still a lot of refugees around, but newer generations of Americans of Cuban decent aren't going to give a shit about what Grandpa did for the Bautistas after a while.

[katmai]

Fucking Cubans.

[lustindarkness]

Fucking Cubans.

Which one? Vida Guerra?!

[Ed Anger]

Fucking Cubans.

Which one? Vida Guerra?!

You get Raul Castro.

[dps]

I think it's overly reductive to just talk about immigration with the Hispanic vote though.  The Republicans don't have a healthcare policy, they have a vague economic policy and (fairly or not) have been painted as a party who's mainly wanting to help the rich.  I think they need to address those areas as well as immigration to get non-Cuban Hispanic (is there any more doleful phrase to Republican ears?) votes.

Yeah, but it all starts with immigration.  Healthcare and other issues are secondary when the primary concern is whether you're going to have to stew in a detention center for 2 years awaiting your deportation hearing.

And Cuban Latinos are going to dissipate over time as a GOP crutch as its demographics get older.  May have mattered in 1988 when there were still a lot of refugees around, but newer generations of Americans of Cuban decent aren't going to give a shit about what Grandpa did for the Bautistas after a while.

Something else, too.  Count's attitude in the Puerto Rico thread reminds me that even at least as recently as 2000 there were still some pretty prominent Democrats who were fairly anti-immigration.  The Democratic party seems to have effectively muzzled those guys.

[garbon]

I think it's overly reductive to just talk about immigration with the Hispanic vote though.  The Republicans don't have a healthcare policy, they have a vague economic policy and (fairly or not) have been painted as a party who's mainly wanting to help the rich.  I think they need to address those areas as well as immigration to get non-Cuban Hispanic (is there any more doleful phrase to Republican ears?) votes.

Yeah, but it all starts with immigration.  Healthcare and other issues are secondary when the primary concern is whether you're going to have to stew in a detention center for 2 years awaiting your deportation hearing.

And Cuban Latinos are going to dissipate over time as a GOP crutch as its demographics get older.  May have mattered in 1988 when there were still a lot of refugees around, but newer generations of Americans of Cuban decent aren't going to give a shit about what Grandpa did for the Bautistas after a while.

Something else, too.  Count's attitude in the Puerto Rico thread reminds me that even at least as recently as 2000 there were still some pretty prominent Democrats who were fairly anti-immigration.  The Democratic party seems to have effectively muzzled those guys.

But he loves Puerto Rico. He just doesn't want poor Spanish speaking people voting in national elections...

[Eddie Teach]

Cd- nationally Ryan was known for one thing, his austerity plan.

[Gups]

I was actually reflecting today just how much better Bush was at campaigning than Romney. Now, I don't think Bush was doing campaign strategy himself but he had a far better ran campaign in both '00 and '04.

Looking back, Bush was able to get all the fundamentalists, not just to begrudgingly vote for him but to fall in love with him. He did that without antagonizing other groups too much directly. Bush was really good at being magnanimous personally and keeping his hands clean, and letting back alley men do the dirty stuff (like getting gay marriage amendments on the ballot to drum up conservative turnout in battleground states.) Bush knew how to get religious conservatives happy with "nothing" issues like his "faith based initiatives" that, while most people found them stupid, they weren't something most people gave a shit about. But it gave the religious right a hard on. Stuff like gay marriage isn't like that, it's a thing you can rail on to get that same demographic but not without alienating some people.

I was looking over the 2004 exit polls and am just stunned by how much stronger Bush was in non-mainstream GOP groups:

44% of Latinos
52% of people who supported civil unions for gays (22% for those wanting full marriage, and 70% for those wanting no rights in this regard)
45% of 18-29

Bush had to run against McCain in the primaries. Romney had to run against a bunch of nutters and find some way of traingulating.

[CountDeMoney]

Cd- nationally Ryan was known for one thing, his austerity plan.

There are plenty of national organizations that keep their eyes on fetus lovers and their legislative agendas on the state and federal level.  I get their emails.

[Berkut]

Agreed.  The problem is that the media from the conservative echo-chamber bought their own divorced-from-reality sales pitch.  Unfortunately for them, elections still occur outside of that echo chamber.

I don't even know that they bought it. I think they just know that is what their viewership wants to hear.