(04-10-2015 03:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 01:24 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I disagree on your first point that there isn't a cycle. Presidents play a role in how the midterms go and a typical president will wear on the people over time - especially if we're talking about a 2 term president. From what I've read in history and seen in real life, it looks like FDR and Reagan are the only 2 that bucked that trend and FDR much more so than Reagan, because even Reagan observed a change in power in the legislature. You can argue that this is a more recent phenomenon, and I can absolutely agree with that since Clinton fatigue brought about the "contract with America", Bush fatigue saw the dems take over the legislature and then Obama fatigue saw that legislature flip back to the GOP hands.

No one tried to compare area, you are correct. However, if the OP of that graphic wasn't implying that the country is overwhelmingly conservative because of the large amount of red on the map then he would be the first.

Regarding the youth, yes I do see a "lifecycle" where young people become more conservative as they age. That's true. However, look at the statistics of church participation over time and you can see that the country is moving towards a more secular nation - just like Europe. My argument would be that as a younger person becomes more conservative, he/she will probably migrate from a liberal dem towards a libertarian as opposed to a GOP heavily influenced by the religious right. This is why Ron Paul was so popular with younger people overall plus GenX while Rand is one of the first candidates that I've ever seen where the word libertarian attached to his candidacy does not look like he has a case of AIDS.

Regarding the population of the U.S. by generation, what you are observing is the huge oscillation between the aging baby boomers being followed up by the unusually small GenX group. Following generations are larger than the GenX group so while your trend will hold for a period of time, it won't last and our population distribution will go back to something more realistic than what we see now (which was more skewed 10 years ago).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...y-boomers/

I've been saying what you've been stating in this thread for a long time.

The religious right is helpful in lower turnout mid-term elections where their solidarity is magnified.

However, when it comes to electoral college math for presidential elections, it's very clear that they're now a hindrance as opposed to any help at all. They're a recipe for the Republicans getting a passionate 49% of the vote and 260-ish electoral college votes, but that's the ceiling with them.

The thought that the Republicans should fear losing the Southern votes by rejecting the religious right is complete hogwash. They have such huge majorities in those states where some religious right voters staying home is irrelevant to the electoral college. Instead, the people that matter are the suburban swing voters (mostly women) in the swing states like Florida, Ohio and Virginia that are increasingly wary of the religious right. Without those 3 states specifically, the Republicans lose. Period.

People don't have to agree with me about gay marriage or other social issues. However, Republicans (and I consider myself one) need to look at political *strategy* much differently. I can hate the Green Bay Packers all that I want (and I very much do as a Bears fan), but I'd be nuts to sit here and argue that Jay Cutler is a better QB than Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers is a better QB even though I personally want the Packers to lose every singe game. Whether I like the Packers or not, they have better personnel to win.

Likewise, the Democratic stance on social issues is better for winning swing state votes that matter. Period. There is no "Well, those voters will eventually see Benghazi/are sick of Clinton/hate Obama/figure out that the economy is terrible/don't want another Democrat!" argument with that segment of the population. They might be bothered with many of those items, but the disgust with the religious right stance on social issues trumps all of that. Conservatives may deny that to be the case because they so badly want their side to win and they live in echo chambers like the South where their positions might be popular (just like I want the Bears to win and saying that the "Packers s**k" is reflexive living in Chicago), but it's true. One anti-gay marriage statement right now can completely derail a Republican presidential campaign in those jurisdictions, so the party candidates need to adjust.

Republicans can definitely win the White House again, but it will take a wholesale retreat on social issues. They don't necessarily have to *support* gay marriage or abortion, but they simply need to ignore them. Get rid of all social issues from the platform and just focus on fiscal issues - that will get those swing voters that matter in Ohio, Virginia and Florida to pay attention, again. Otherwise, as I've said several times before here, we might as well start moving the Clintons' furniture back into the White House right now if they actually think that placating the religious right is a smart election strategy. The Republicans will just be relegated to being principled election losers for the next 8 years once again.

And it doesn't help that the GOP initiates the the LGBT discussion with stuff like the Indiana religious freedom laws.

(04-10-2015 03:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:50 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I see so many inaccuracies with this post. For example the historical trend of younger people going from liberal to conservative as they age is not happening with the current generation as it has done so in the past.

Since your generation is just now approaching the 'transitional window' I don't know if we can make that determination yet.

People born after Windows 95 came out can now vote just an FYI. The oldest Millenials are now 35, not to mention that that tail end of Gen X would also allow us a better look at the going trend. Most would put the transitional window in the late 20s early 30s. I'd say we can make the determination.

Being in the tail end of Gen X I haven't seen that much of a break from that tradition. I don't it will be at the same rate for millennials, but the results can only be determined once about 80% of the demographic crosses over the 33 age line.

(04-10-2015 02:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I see so many inaccuracies with this post. For example the historical trend of younger people going from liberal to conservative as they age is not happening with the current generation as it has done so in the past.

Oh and just an FYI the millennials (1980-1999) are the largest generation beating out the baby boomers by 11 million. The most common age in the US right now is 22. Your "fact" is a complete lie.

Your inability to read and comprehend English doesn't make my comment a lie.

None of what you say here even addresses, much less refutes my claims,

The most common age statistic is meaningless. The fact that you thing it means something shows that you don't understand the issues.

something like 1.48% of the population is 22. Something like 1.46% is 53. It's a rounding error. What matters is that there are only about 20% of the population that is millenials and about 55% that is voting age, but not millenials.

and even within millenials, the dem/rep skew is only about 10 points.

I'd also note that I said, unless you're talking about hispanics... and every study you're talking about notes that the reason why the cohorts under 40 are actually growing is immigration.

I never said they couldn't or even shouldn't try to appeal more to this group. I implied that they didn't have to... and certainly didn't need to change their platforms to do so...

and they don't.

I strongly suspect that Hillary and Biden won't appeal to them more than Obama did, and Cruz or Rand Paul probably would.

Statistically, winning elections is as much about motivating your electorate or 'un-'motivating your opponent's as it is about having popular ideas.

Quote:You should try reading up on Frank the Tank, he has a very strong opinion on this.

I tend to get my data from people with things like 'Doctor' and 'Professor' and 'Chief Economist' associated with them not 'The Tank'. I then form my own opinions.


But as an aside, reading his comments above, he seems to think that the key is winning three states... which has nothing to do with winning with millenials.... ESPECIALLY in that one of those states is Florida which skews older. I also don't see that Ohio or Virginia are particularly attractive to 20-30 year olds (any more than any other) which means that according to him, perhaps 90% of those millenials are in states that don't matter one bit.

The key is ABSOLUTELY winning a few states... not winning ANY particular age demographic.

(04-10-2015 04:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I see so many inaccuracies with this post. For example the historical trend of younger people going from liberal to conservative as they age is not happening with the current generation as it has done so in the past.

Oh and just an FYI the millennials (1980-1999) are the largest generation beating out the baby boomers by 11 million. The most common age in the US right now is 22. Your "fact" is a complete lie.

Your inability to read and comprehend English doesn't make my comment a lie.

None of what you say here even addresses, much less refutes my claims,

The most common age statistic is meaningless. The fact that you thing it means something shows that you don't understand the issues.

something like 1.48% of the population is 22. Something like 1.46% is 53. It's a rounding error. What matters is that there are only about 20% of the population that is millenials and about 55% that is voting age, but not millenials.

and even within millenials, the dem/rep skew is only about 10 points.

I'd also note that I said, unless you're talking about hispanics... and every study you're talking about notes that the reason why the cohorts under 40 are actually growing is immigration.

I never said they couldn't or even shouldn't try to appeal more to this group. I implied that they didn't have to... and certainly didn't need to change their platforms to do so...

and they don't.

I strongly suspect that Hillary and Biden won't appeal to them more than Obama did, and Cruz or Rand Paul probably would.

Statistically, winning elections is as much about motivating your electorate or 'un-'motivating your opponent's as it is about having popular ideas.

Quote:You should try reading up on Frank the Tank, he has a very strong opinion on this.

I tend to get my data from people with things like 'Doctor' and 'Professor' and 'Chief Economist' associated with them not 'The Tank'. I then form my own opinions.


But as an aside, reading his comments above, he seems to think that the key is winning three states... which has nothing to do with winning with millenials.... ESPECIALLY in that one of those states is Florida which skews older. I also don't see that Ohio or Virginia are particularly attractive to 20-30 year olds (any more than any other) which means that according to him, perhaps 90% of those millenials are in states that don't matter one bit.

The key is ABSOLUTELY winning a few states... not winning ANY particular age demographic.

Yep. And the difference is Obama is a committed liberal that got African Americans crawling over glass to vote for him in record numbers while McCain and Romney are phonies and Joe Six-pack saw right through it. Romney got less votes then McCain despite winning the debates, picking a competent VP, and just being a much more qualified candidate. Explain that... I will... a committed liberal will motivate more people to vote than a moderate. People stayed home. Hillary just isn't going to get the people to the polls IMO. To be fair, neither will Jeb Bush. We need a fresh start and anyone pulling the lever over kitchen table issues has already made up their mind anyway.

There are 4.6 million 53 year olds and 4.7 million 22 year olds.

So yes you are correct in the sense that there is not a major difference between those two specific ages. However that doesn't tell the whole story.

There were 4.7 23 year olds, 4.6 21 year olds.

So while the 53 "peak" is as tall as the 22 "peak" the 53 peak doesn't have as many people on each of its sides as the 22 "peak"

Those born in 1997 can now vote, considering that the millenials end at 99*, it's a fact that nearly all of them can now vote.

*Personally I hate the current breakup. If I had to do it I would split the millenials in half at around 1991/1993 mark and put the younger half in with the same generation as Gen Z.

I'm not gonna take the akward position of propping up a poster who is currently reading this. but he does have an impressive resume, his viewpoints are supported by various experts and are by no means abnormal, and his post was just one of many different comments that he has made on this subject. I didn't defer to him as an expert, but as the csnbbs poster who talks about this most of the time.

(04-10-2015 04:37 PM)john01992 Wrote:  There are 4.6 million 53 year olds and 4.7 million 22 year olds.

So yes you are correct in the sense that there is not a major difference between those two specific ages. However that doesn't tell the whole story.

There were 4.7 23 year olds, 4.6 21 year olds.

So while the 53 "peak" is as tall as the 22 "peak" the 53 peak doesn't have as many people on each of its sides as the 22 "peak"

Those born in 1997 can now vote, considering that the millenials end at 99*, it's a fact that nearly all of them can now vote.

*Personally I hate the current breakup. If I had to do it I would split the millenials in half at around 1991/1993 mark and put the younger half in with the same generation as Gen Z.

I'm not gonna take the akward position of propping up a poster who is currently reading this. but he does have an impressive resume, his viewpoints are supported by various experts and are by no means abnormal, and his post was just one of many different comments that he has made on this subject. I didn't defer to him as an expert, but as the csnbbs poster who talks about this most of the time.

The peaks don't matter.

The fact is that there are only about half as many voters in the entire millenial cohort as there are voters outside that cohort. You don't NEED to win the millenial cohort to win an election... ESPECIALLY if as Frank notes, they aren't in the right states. CAN you win elections by targeting those people? Of course you can. But if you lose more of those between 36 and 96 than you gain, then what is the point?

As to propping up Frank.... Other than the fact that I don't know him from Adam, there was nothing in my post that was insulting to him. He may well BE a PhD or Chief Economist... but I don't know it. He's a blogger with an opinion. It appears to be an informed one, but so is mine. I'll listen to him certainly, but I won't simply defer to him as you seemed to want me to do. He seems just as blinded by political ideology as anyone else... and there are people who get paid MILLIONS of dollars (and I'm betting Frank isn't one of them and I KNOW I'm not) to advise the GOP. My point was that I don't generally get my information from which to form my opinions from unknown people with blogs, no matter how intelligent and well thought out they sound. I far more often get my opinions from people with verifiable credentials and expertise in an area. My comment had nothing to do with Frank himself, so you didn't need to prop him up.

Having said that, I took what he DID say and agreed 100% with him that it is about a few states... and not how many 22-year-olds there are. It's more about MOTIVATING (or not) the various cohorts... and as I said, I suspect Rand or Cruz would do FAR better with that group than say McCain or Romney against Hillary or Biden.

When roughly half of all Americans are living off government, the Republican message of smaller government isn't going to win much anyway.

(04-10-2015 06:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  When roughly half of all Americans are living off government, the Republican message of smaller government isn't going to win much anyway.

That too is a problem. But you might be able to get away with going after the bureaucracy.

(04-10-2015 03:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 01:24 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I disagree on your first point that there isn't a cycle. Presidents play a role in how the midterms go and a typical president will wear on the people over time - especially if we're talking about a 2 term president. From what I've read in history and seen in real life, it looks like FDR and Reagan are the only 2 that bucked that trend and FDR much more so than Reagan, because even Reagan observed a change in power in the legislature. You can argue that this is a more recent phenomenon, and I can absolutely agree with that since Clinton fatigue brought about the "contract with America", Bush fatigue saw the dems take over the legislature and then Obama fatigue saw that legislature flip back to the GOP hands.

No one tried to compare area, you are correct. However, if the OP of that graphic wasn't implying that the country is overwhelmingly conservative because of the large amount of red on the map then he would be the first.

Regarding the youth, yes I do see a "lifecycle" where young people become more conservative as they age. That's true. However, look at the statistics of church participation over time and you can see that the country is moving towards a more secular nation - just like Europe. My argument would be that as a younger person becomes more conservative, he/she will probably migrate from a liberal dem towards a libertarian as opposed to a GOP heavily influenced by the religious right. This is why Ron Paul was so popular with younger people overall plus GenX while Rand is one of the first candidates that I've ever seen where the word libertarian attached to his candidacy does not look like he has a case of AIDS.

Regarding the population of the U.S. by generation, what you are observing is the huge oscillation between the aging baby boomers being followed up by the unusually small GenX group. Following generations are larger than the GenX group so while your trend will hold for a period of time, it won't last and our population distribution will go back to something more realistic than what we see now (which was more skewed 10 years ago).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...y-boomers/

I've been saying what you've been stating in this thread for a long time.

The religious right is helpful in lower turnout mid-term elections where their solidarity is magnified.

However, when it comes to electoral college math for presidential elections, it's very clear that they're now a hindrance as opposed to any help at all. They're a recipe for the Republicans getting a passionate 49% of the vote and 260-ish electoral college votes, but that's the ceiling with them.

The thought that the Republicans should fear losing the Southern votes by rejecting the religious right is complete hogwash. They have such huge majorities in those states where some religious right voters staying home is irrelevant to the electoral college. Instead, the people that matter are the suburban swing voters (mostly women) in the swing states like Florida, Ohio and Virginia that are increasingly wary of the religious right. Without those 3 states specifically, the Republicans lose. Period.

People don't have to agree with me about gay marriage or other social issues. However, Republicans (and I consider myself one) need to look at political *strategy* much differently. I can hate the Green Bay Packers all that I want (and I very much do as a Bears fan), but I'd be nuts to sit here and argue that Jay Cutler is a better QB than Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers is a better QB even though I personally want the Packers to lose every singe game. Whether I like the Packers or not, they have better personnel to win.

Likewise, the Democratic stance on social issues is better for winning swing state votes that matter. Period. There is no "Well, those voters will eventually see Benghazi/are sick of Clinton/hate Obama/figure out that the economy is terrible/don't want another Democrat!" argument with that segment of the population. They might be bothered with many of those items, but the disgust with the religious right stance on social issues trumps all of that. Conservatives may deny that to be the case because they so badly want their side to win and they live in echo chambers like the South where their positions might be popular (just like I want the Bears to win and saying that the "Packers s**k" is reflexive living in Chicago), but it's true. One anti-gay marriage statement right now can completely derail a Republican presidential campaign in those jurisdictions, so the party candidates need to adjust.

Republicans can definitely win the White House again, but it will take a wholesale retreat on social issues. They don't necessarily have to *support* gay marriage or abortion, but they simply need to ignore them. Get rid of all social issues from the platform and just focus on fiscal issues - that will get those swing voters that matter in Ohio, Virginia and Florida to pay attention, again. Otherwise, as I've said several times before here, we might as well start moving the Clintons' furniture back into the White House right now if they actually think that placating the religious right is a smart election strategy. The Republicans will just be relegated to being principled election losers for the next 8 years once again.

To Frank and Hambone (just picking one post to respond to). As you know, I agree with much of what was stated above. I guess I never saw these thoughts from you on CSNBBS before, and I admit that I haven't seen your blog in years since realignment first broke back in 2010 or 2011 so I missed it if this was on your blog. A lot of what you write does correspond with Hambone's views too.

Tactically speaking I agree with the notion that the GOP can make some sacrifices to make the message broader in order to poach independents in order to secure the toss-up states (purple). I believe in this you and Hambone are similar. Strategically speaking, I disagree with Hambone (not sure if with you as well) in that it is likely to happen that the GOP will continue to keep the machine rolling by relying on the notion that people become more like a GOP voter as they age. So long as the GOP links strongly with the religious right, in time that will turn off too many voters as the youth ages and they are living a generation that is much less connected to religion. That's the crux of this thread.

(04-10-2015 02:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 01:24 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I disagree on your first point that there isn't a cycle. Presidents play a role in how the midterms go and a typical president will wear on the people over time - especially if we're talking about a 2 term president. From what I've read in history and seen in real life, it looks like FDR and Reagan are the only 2 that bucked that trend and FDR much more so than Reagan, because even Reagan observed a change in power in the legislature. You can argue that this is a more recent phenomenon, and I can absolutely agree with that since Clinton fatigue brought about the "contract with America", Bush fatigue saw the dems take over the legislature and then Obama fatigue saw that legislature flip back to the GOP hands.

My point is that these are as much driven by policy differences and not merely by people getting tired of the party in power. If it were, Obama wouldn't have lost so many seats in his first mid-term. There certainly wasn't fatigue over him yet. It was a reaction to the actions of the Democrats in Congress. Bush and Reagan and even Clinton generally saw their fatigue after their re-elections. Obama, Carter, Nixon and likely Ford were all policy driven. I'm not saying there isn't any pattern at all, I'm merely saying that you can't dismiss policy differences (are you better off today) and simply rely on patterns. There are plenty of exceptions to the pattern.

Quote:No one tried to compare area, you are correct. However, if the OP of that graphic wasn't implying that the country is overwhelmingly conservative because of the large amount of red on the map then he would be the first.

I'm sure many do, but it can't possibly be the first. Representing the country graphically like that is what every election and every station has done since perhaps the color TV. Given that they started by showing the 2008 results which were overwhelmingly blue, I think the point being made is that there was a dramatic change.

Quote:Regarding the youth, yes I do see a "lifecycle" where young people become more conservative as they age. That's true. However, look at the statistics of church participation over time and you can see that the country is moving towards a more secular nation - just like Europe. My argument would be that as a younger person becomes more conservative, he/she will probably migrate from a liberal dem towards a libertarian as opposed to a GOP heavily influenced by the religious right. This is why Ron Paul was so popular with younger people overall plus GenX while Rand is one of the first candidates that I've ever seen where the word libertarian attached to his candidacy does not look like he has a case of AIDS.

But libertarians at least at this point ARE Republicans. I agree that they shouldn't be, but they are... They certainly aren't Democrats. Certainly the GOP ticket can be split, but they also know that and try hard not to do that if they can help it. There wasn't a serious libertarian candidate for President in 2008 or 2012 and I doubt there will be (outside of the Republican party) in 2016. In 2020? Who knows.

Europe also overwhelmingly has a national sales tax as their primary funding source, which only Republicans have proposed and Democrats have fought HARD against. The religious right would be subject to the same declines as the rest of the population, so their influence and significance to the GOP will also decline.

I think far too many leftists overstate the significance of the religious right in the GOP. They've had anti-abortion comments as part of their platform for 30 or more years now, and still, even under Republican President's and Congresses, abortions have remained legal. Sarah Palin, often viewed as the poster child for the religious right VETOED a bill in far right leaning Alaska that would have denied spousal benefits to domestic partners. Best I know, she's no Constitutional Scholar so there is NO WAY that 'the courts wouldn't allow it' would be a reason for her to do that. I think it pretty clear that the GOP as a whole (and certainly most libertarians) pay a lot of lip service to the far right.... and in some house districts, ACTUAL service (just like the looney left) but when the rubber hits the road, it's far more practical.

Quote:Regarding the population of the U.S. by generation, what you are observing is the huge oscillation between the aging baby boomers being followed up by the unusually small GenX group. Following generations are larger than the GenX group so while your trend will hold for a period of time, it won't last and our population distribution will go back to something more realistic than what we see now (which was more skewed 10 years ago).

Millenials are described as 18-34, and Ibelieve that the switch between liberal and conservative happens closer to 28... further, gen x is also aging, so while they are smaller than either the boomers OR millenials, there are only generally 2 choices...

I think the larger reality is that the 18-25yr old millenials who swept Obama into office in 2008 will be 26-33 year olds in 2016. I don't know if the ones who were 10-17 in 2008 were larger or smaller than this group, but I think the proper math is to compare everyone between say 18-30 and everyone 30 or older. The group 30+ will almost always be larger and more conservative than the group 18-30.... even if the millenials are larger than the boomers.

Only saying that you've oversimplified the analysis. Conservatives don't need to reach young people if they can still get them as they age.

Personally, I think libertarians need to reach more liberals. I'm astounded at how few liberals believe in individual rights. European liberals ABSOLUTELY do. A European liberal is about as close to an American Libertarian as you can get... and not at ALL a US liberal.

Brief comments as a response. I agree that voting patterns are not exclusively the byproduct of a purely predictable pattern. As you pointed out with Obama, he lost voters in his first term which has more to do with policy than fatigue. In your earlier comments about this it appeared that you were stating that policy trumps fatigue and that there is no real cycle to speak of. I think there is a natural cycle that develops whenever we're talking about a 2 term president, and fatigue is a natural development that will siphon off support over time. A lot of that has to do with the low information voter who is not fully plugged in to parse thru all the policy decisions made. Low info voters have an internal clock, and they will get tired of party or politician given time. I think it's a significant factor if not always the dominant one.

Regarding oversimplification on my part, I assume you are referring to the idea that I believe the GOP MUST have young voters in the fold. I did not mean to imply that nor state that. As you advised, the GOP can continue to siphon off younger liberals to the GOP camp as they age. My contention is that this cannot continue indefinitely so long as the GOP is strongly tied to the religious right. My reasoning is that our country is become more secular. The bible belt doesn't want to acknowledge it, but it's happening. You see it more clearly in the Catholic and Protestant churches founded during the Reformation. I think the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are showing better continuity - for now. But to me the demographics are shifting based on what I saw and linked to in this thread. Evies and Fundies are simply climbing to higher ground as the flood waters continue to rise. While race plays a role in the shorter term, I think as time goes on the race issue won't be as drastic due to people assimilating into American culture. They'll lose their racial identities as they become more Americanized and will vote more along the lines of their political views as they square with the parties. - civil liberties and economic liberties.

(04-10-2015 04:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I tend to get my data from people with things like 'Doctor' and 'Professor' and 'Chief Economist' associated with them not 'The Tank'. I then form my own opinions.


But as an aside, reading his comments above, he seems to think that the key is winning three states... which has nothing to do with winning with millenials.... ESPECIALLY in that one of those states is Florida which skews older. I also don't see that Ohio or Virginia are particularly attractive to 20-30 year olds (any more than any other) which means that according to him, perhaps 90% of those millenials are in states that don't matter one bit.

The key is ABSOLUTELY winning a few states... not winning ANY particular age demographic.

I do know political operatives on both sides of the aisle being a corporate lawyer. Believe me - there is quite a difference in their PR spin in public versus the data that they use internally to actually plot strategy.

Regardless, you're somewhat right that it's ultimately not about Millennials (as that's more of a long-term issue as opposed to a short-term issue), but it's also not about "Joe Six Pack" (i.e. white working class males). The Republicans do NOT have a turnout problem - it boggles my mind that there are people in the party that actually believe this. They were highly motivated to defeat Obama in 2012 and their high turnout was NOT enough because they couldn't combine it with the swing voters.

There's one demographic that matters more than any other: affluent suburban women. Those are the people that decide Ohio, Virginia and Florida. Not Millennials. Not working class voters. Not social conservatives. Not African-Americans. Not Hispanics. Not liberals. Bill Clinton's political team correctly identified soccer moms as the new key voting bloc (as opposed to the white working class males that politicians traditionally obsessed over) back in 1992 and that has held true in every single presidential election ever since then. They're the ones that re-elected George W. Bush over John Kerry because of national security concerns and they're the ones that voted Obama into office twice because they sympathize with his social stances more. They live in higher income households that would sympathize with Republican fiscal and tax policies, but are strongly in favor of Democratic social policies (particularly on gay marriage and abortion), which is why they're true independent voters right in the middle of the political spectrum.

Every political operative that actually has to analyze data, whether they're Republican or Democrat, knows this. I've pointed this out before: just watch the messaging at the conventions for both parties. They're full weeks of speaker upon speaker upon speaker with laser-like targeting toward suburban women.

My semi-educated guess is that the super-majority of people posting on this board are male. At the end of the day, we're literally the least valuable votes in the entire presidential election process. (Mid-term Congressional elections are a different story.) Our wives, girlfriends and significant others, though, are the ones that really hold the power (particularly if you live in a legit swing state).

So, what are Republicans doing to attract suburban women? What is the plan from the people on this board that actually want to win presidential elections to target that group? That is what actually takes strategic thinking beyond, "This is what I believe and therefore we just need to turnout more people that agree with me" that seems to permeate too much of the Republican Party right now. The GOP is acting like the Democrats circa 2004, where all they could agree on was that they hated Bush while the MoveOn.org crowd openly funded leftist challengers to more mainstream candidates with broader appeal but supposedly "not liberal enough". (Call me crazy, but history seems to be repeating itself on the other side of the aisle.) Love him or hate him, Karl Rove actually knew how to get messages out to suburban women where he could make a compelling case to them that national security would trump any concerns that they had about Republican stances on abortion and other other social issues.

Since 2008, though, the Democrats have been absolutely destroying the Republicans in this demo. We have seen two straight primaries where Republicans just ignored suburban women concerns for months (instead fighting about whether the mainstream candidate is conservative enough) and then start scrambling at the convention to change their tone since they know that they'll lose all swing states without that demo. In contrast, Democrats target their message to suburban women from the very beginning of the primaries, and that pays off months later in the general election since there's a much higher trust factor there. I fear that we're looking at a repeat of this in the 2016 primaries - at the very least, Ted Cruz is going to push the more mainstream candidates to state things that they don't really want being emphasized in the general election (and believe me, the support that the GOP candidates voiced for the Indiana RFRA over the past couple of weeks will come back to bite them next year).

Everyone has their own personal political beliefs and our brains are hardwired to make us perceive that we're "middle of the road" and "reasonable". We (collectively as people) have TERRIBLE self-recognition of where we actually fall within the national political spectrum in relation to others - pretty much everyone thinks that they're more moderate than they are in reality. If anything, the more you follow politics, the more disjointed you become from the true middle. My dad has always followed politics heavily with strong and articulate views on all issues... and has voted straight-ticket Republican for the last 40 years. Meanwhile, my mom - an affluent suburban woman - doesn't follow politics at all. She'll watch a handful of speeches in the weeks before the election and then make a decision. Yet, she has ended up voting for EVERY single presidential winner since she was eligible to vote, whether they were Republican or Democrat. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. She loved Ronald Reagan, she loved Bill Clinton, she loved George W. Bush, and she loves Obama. That might sound crazy to any of us here when looking at all of their respective political positions, yet her personal preferences (that unquantifiable subjective feeling of who would be a better leader) have more predictive power for presidential elections than any in-depth objective political analysis of the issues. (Note that she loves Hillary Clinton.) That's just a personal anecdote, but it pertains to the much greater data set: don't think of who you would vote for, but rather who your mom, wife, sister or girlfriend would vote for and why they vote the way that they do. They are gold when it comes to presidential elections, while pretty much everyone on this board (whether conservative, liberal or in between) is a commodity.

(04-10-2015 11:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Regarding oversimplification on my part, I assume you are referring to the idea that I believe the GOP MUST have young voters in the fold. I did not mean to imply that nor state that. As you advised, the GOP can continue to siphon off younger liberals to the GOP camp as they age. My contention is that this cannot continue indefinitely so long as the GOP is strongly tied to the religious right. My reasoning is that our country is become more secular. The bible belt doesn't want to acknowledge it, but it's happening. You see it more clearly in the Catholic and Protestant churches founded during the Reformation. I think the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are showing better continuity - for now. But to me the demographics are shifting based on what I saw and linked to in this thread. Evies and Fundies are simply climbing to higher ground as the flood waters continue to rise. While race plays a role in the shorter term, I think as time goes on the race issue won't be as drastic due to people assimilating into American culture. They'll lose their racial identities as they become more Americanized and will vote more along the lines of their political views as they square with the parties. - civil liberties and economic liberties.

This is a great point. Voters generally get more conservative when they get older, but the shift to secularism in general (especially among young people) can upend that traditional trajectory assuming that the Republican Party doesn't adapt (i.e. minimizing or eliminating the religiou right). Now, I do think the Republican Party will *eventually* adapt if only for political survival (just as both parties have had to hold their noses and move on with respect to certain issues throughout history). My frustration is that plenty of people within the party (including RNC leadership) know about the need to adapt NOW, yet GOP candidates are still scared to have a Sister Souljah moment with the religious right. As a result, we likely won't see that adaptation happen until Hillary is in office for 8 years despite Republicans having plenty of data from the prior 8 years to know that they already need to adapt.

(04-10-2015 09:17 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 06:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  When roughly half of all Americans are living off government, the Republican message of smaller government isn't going to win much anyway.

That too is a problem. But you might be able to get away with going after the bureaucracy.

I agree with this. I actually think this is where Libertarians should start. You can't just preach destroying the institutions, but EVERYONE is turned off by bureaucracy.

I'm not going to try to respond to every point in the previous disertations, but I will say that values are important to soccer moms. Even Bill Clinton himself pretended to have them. Romney won married women. I think the problem wasn't soccer moms but that there aren't enough of them. They are being placed with single moms and childless women.

(04-10-2015 11:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:  My contention is that this cannot continue indefinitely so long as the GOP is strongly tied to the religious right. My reasoning is that our country is become more secular. The bible belt doesn't want to acknowledge it, but it's happening. You see it more clearly in the Catholic and Protestant churches founded during the Reformation. I think the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are showing better continuity - for now. But to me the demographics are shifting based on what I saw and linked to in this thread. Evies and Fundies are simply climbing to higher ground as the flood waters continue to rise. While race plays a role in the shorter term, I think as time goes on the race issue won't be as drastic due to people assimilating into American culture. They'll lose their racial identities as they become more Americanized and will vote more along the lines of their political views as they square with the parties. - civil liberties and economic liberties.

Which is precisely why 'libertarians' are growing within the GOP. My contention is that despite all of the outreach to the religious right, even when the GOP has controlled all branches, we haven't seen any significant moves towards their agenda. A lot of talk and virtually no action. That is because MANY republicans (like me) are true small government republicans.... and while we may be personally religious, we are not legislatively so.

The right obviously recognizes the 'soccer mom' demographis as well and that is why Palin was nominated.

My REAL point is that someone implied that the operatives within the GOP don't know what is going on around them... and that is just silly. The 'old guard' 's FIRST fight is against libertarians... not Democrats. And the driving difference between those two parties isn't how they feel about religion... but how they feel about legislating religion. Libertarians are slowly but steadily becoming a greater force within the GOP... and I believe, have significant appeal within independents. More importantly, I think their appeal with moderate liberals will also grow as time passes.... NOT because they share their general view of religion, but because they realize that the ability to legislate ONE viewpoint creates the ability to legislate another. Said simpler (but less accurate) that the key to strengthening minority rights is NOT to constantly add groups to the lists of protected opinions, but to not let government decide which opinions are right and wrong at all.

The left and right are all about the fight over opinions... and libertarians are all about not NEEDING to fight over opinions.


And Frank.... Just to be clear... My comment was not directed at you personally or even at your comments... especially in that we don't really disagree much... merely have a different focus... but at your 'handle'. I have no idea what your qualifications are or where you get your information and opinions from. You say you are a JD so 'Doctor' WOULD be part of your actual pedigree... not 'the Tank'. There is no need for you to defend yourself because I was not attacking you or your opinions... merely the reliance on 'internet bloggers' (including me) for significant input into people's opinions. People should ALWAYS 'fact check' anonymous sources.

JD is a professional doctorate, so you don't usually use the moniker 'doctor'. Saying you have a doctorate in law has a different meaning than a juris doctorate.

Only know that because I had the same question for the gf.

(04-13-2015 11:43 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  JD is a professional doctorate, so you don't usually use the moniker 'doctor'. Saying you have a doctorate in law has a different meaning than a juris doctorate.

Only know that because I had the same question for the gf.

Not disagreeing but immaterial to the comment I made that I was addressing...

"the Tank' is more different from 'doctor' than JD is from doctor. Both JD and Doctor (whether professional OR academic) imply a higher level of education and study in SOME field which may or may not imply some expertise on the matter.

My point was that I tend to get my information from reliable and verifiable sources... not internet posters. Certainly internet posters CAN get my attention and make me think, but I will still then defer to 'verifiable' professionals in their fields.