I've said elsewhere that this was probably the last election where the Republicans stood a real chance of gaining the American Presidency with a program that mainly appeals to prosperous suburban whites and holds little appeal to most women and almost no appeal at all to racial minorities. 

If the GOP is to survive, what do you think it would have to look like? What could it possibly look like?

Views: 2012

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Tomorrow's voters don't count today. It'll be at least 20 years until they start making an impact, the current voting bloc de rigeur is the fuck ya'll, I got mine boomers.  

So, human nature is going to change in the future. 


No just the excess divergence from atheist sensibilities.

You are talking about voters which don't exist and which may or may not exist in the future. It tends to be a good idea to analyze that which is, and not make wild guesses as to the makeup of an imagined electorate. 

While they will indeed have aged, they will still be a vanishingly small part of the total, even though it may rise from ~8% to ~13%. The bulk of voters will still be the 60+ gang, which is currently being filled by the boomer ranks. It would be nice if the average American voter gained a few notches on the IQ scale and found an opinion volume button,  but I hardly expect it to happen. It's not like the Clinton years were the model of sanity either.

I didn't bring up those under 30, that would be you. My only contribution was to analyze the voters under 30, as voters is sorta those who counts when it comes to the elections.

I referenced your poll and explained to you that the non-religious only constitute 6% of the population. Your WaPo quote does not exist in the article your link, now that I bothered to check it. It has probably been changed because it was blatantly obvious that it was incorrect.

As to citing sources. There is this wonderful new invention called Google, which you can use to find pictures of cute kittens and check facts. If you had bothered to go there, and type in "under 30 turnout" yesterday, your first link would be this page. The remainder, such as the boomers becoming old, should be common knowledge. I'll add a couple of other facts (you can check them on Google if you don't believe me): As people age they tend to become more conservative and have a higher voter turnout.

I will state again that you have to analyze what you got, not what you believe will happen in the future. In addition we are talking about an established conservative party in the US, which will probably never be an atheist's first choice. 

Increases from a small percentage to a slightly higher percentage will necessarily yield large increases, but they still account for a negligible sliver of the voter mass, and as you already stated they already affiliate with the democratic party. Which means they are uninteresting for the republicans. If the dems wish to go full on non-religious they will lose a hell of a lot of votes as the vast majority remains religious in the US. Going out against religion is political suicide in the US for the foreseeable future for both parties, unfortunately.

Additionally, the two voting blocs with the highest growth rate are the elderly and hispanics, both of which tend to be religious, the former tend to be inclined towards conservatism, and the latter were almost split a mere 8 years ago. 

The republicans won't base their strategy on stealing votes, but manouver slightly more to the center, increase their appeal among women and hispanics, and just wait for power to wear on the democrats. They are in any event almost guaranteed to win the election in 4 years.

As for your religiously unaffiliated:

"However, a new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted jointly with the PBS television program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, finds that many of the country’s 46 million unaffiliated adults are religious or spiritual in some way. Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68%). More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58%), while more than a third classify themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” (37%), and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day."

"Based on the Pew Research, 17% of the electorate does not attend church regularly. Of that group, 62% voted for Obama. So they cast 20,269,891 votes, of which 12,567,332 went to Obama."

As such, these are quite uninteresting for the GOP to craft a policy towards since they are overwhelmingly democratic. The other 83% is where they have a better chance. In fact, from the data the preferred choice for the republicans is to whip people into churches as the higher the attendance the higher the probability to vote to the right. Which it seems as if they are managing, seeing as religious attendance has increased since the previous election.

"There is no credible basis to continue dismissing them as insignificant."

Except if you are looking at the electorate through the eyes of the GOP, which is sorta the point of this thread, is it not?

"Who (besides you) suggested the Democrats should be "going out against religion"?"

You continue to bring up the religiously unaffiliated and non-church goers. If your point is not to make a case against getting religion out of politics or at least toning it down, then why are you continually bringing it up?

"My words were that the Republicans are facing "a growing disadvantage to a strong association with religion"."

Whether you look at that as the number of religious people having declined from 96 to 94% over the course of a decade, or that the number of religiously affiliated voters has decreased from 91% to 88%, you are looking at an exceedingly long time frame before this will have a major impact. The fact remains that toning down religion may alienate 9/10ths of the electorate, and therefore seems like an exceedingly dumb idea politically, unfortunately for the US and the world.

"For added perspective, Hispanics are 10% of the electorate. Of that group, 71% voted for Obama. So they cast 11,923,465 votes, of which 8,465,660 went to Obama."

This is true, but they are also an electorate which is in play and "Hispanics made up a growing share of voters in three of the key battleground states in yesterday’s election—Florida, Nevada and Colorado." From your own numbers, ~80% of these will probably doesn't have much against the religious profile of the republicans. 


Look, I would love nothing more for the political parties in the US to be less associated with religion. However, I don't see this happening in the next elections, and if you are looking 2-3 elections ahead in the future I think the a major shift will be towards a higher focus on foreign policy as China is demanding an equal seat at the table from 2020. A rival superpower will scare a lot of people, and when people are scared they stream into the churches. The last 20 years have been domestic issues elections between social liberals and social conservatives, the next 20 years will probably be more hawks vs doves.


The republicans won't base their strategy on stealing votes, but manouver slightly more to the center, increase their appeal among women and hispanics, and just wait for power to wear on the democrats. They are in any event almost guaranteed to win the election in 4 years.

We boomers are growing old and we are far less conservative than prior generations of the elderly (sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll, black liberation, feminism). Also, the elderly, as a group, don't like people talking about messing with Social Security. I think you'll eventually find that your prediction is wrong.

Agreed. I wanted Huntsman for president the moment he said that evolution was real and climate change was happening, but that meant that he was dead in the water during the primaries.

hey - lol - kk

Hey - love the signoff. Its even more characteristic than - kk

Romney alienated one minority constituency after another until they added up to a collective majority: women, Hispanics, blue collar workers with jobs related to the auto industry. He never did anything at all to appeal to blacks. 

He used to be a so-called moderate Republican, but in order to appeal to the conservative and Tea Party wing, he hardened most of those positions to the point where he could call himself an "extreme conservative."

Upon hearing Romney's 97% of Americans are moochers comment, one pundit said, "This is the day Romney lost the election." Why? Because a lot of those in the 97% were people Republicans could normally count on: retired people, veterans, etc.

It's hard to imagine how the GOP could win the lost demographics back and not become the Democratic Party #2.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service