I’ll disagree and say it’s because Republicans are too free market, too anti-welfare state (even Mitt), and too scary for Hispanics (immigration).
And maybe still a little too scary on foreign policy.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ll disagree and say it’s because Republicans are too free market, too anti-welfare state (even Mitt), and too scary for Hispanics (immigration).
[/quote]
x2 Especially the immigration deal.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’m not convinced of that because a large portion of the Latinos are Catholic. Like real Catholics, not just in name.
[/quote]
I was speaking more in general terms. I think the main reason that Latinos specifically are more supportive of liberals is because of immigration policy, which is a big deal to a lot of Latinos. More so then social conservatism.
EDIT: You guys beat me to it. At least we are in agreement on that.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
I think that the big reason that Obama is beating Romney is because of social issues. More and more people, especially young people, are socially liberal, and younger people are just going to continue to replace older voters. I think that if the Republicans can produce a candidate that supports social issues that are important to young people and keeps religious views to a minimum, while staying with conservative views on economic and foreign policy as well as the idea of smaller government, then they could win 2016 in a massive landslide. The problem with this is that I believe that many Republicans and conservatives in general care more about social issues as well and will not compromise on this.[/quote]
I take your point, but polls consistently show that people aren’t prioritizing social issues in their voting this year; it’s the economy, the deficit, etc., so I am not sure that was the driver this election.
That said, I think you’re right to a point: when you have a Todd Akin in the race, it’s hard for people (even beyond young people) to not associate such characters with the broader brand of the GOP, and that, frankly, hurts.
So we agree to drop social conservatism in exchange for dropping immigration tough talk, talk of entitlement reform (no more voucher, privatization, or turning it back to the states stuff), and the macho military talk.
Wait, we’re Democrats!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ll disagree and say it’s because Republicans are too free market, too anti-welfare state (even Mitt), and too scary for Hispanics (immigration). [/quote]
Agreed. Republicans are viewed as a party that wants to gut the social safety net and certain commercial rules generally, not just reform them. Some of this is caricature on the part of Democrats, but lots of it is the fact that the current GOP is so wedded to the market-fixes-everything idea that voters don’t trust the GOP to be good stewards of these (in their minds) very important programs.
Entitlements are unsustainable, and what can’t go on forever won’t. But the GOP - as a brand - just isn’t seen as the party who will handle that reform responsibly.
Moreover, after the economic meltdown, people want a tough sheriff for some law and order in the economy, and the GOP can’t (or won’t) put up that person or those people. GOP and conservatives used to be law and order types - now the candidates on the national level are market fundamentalists.
To regain credibility, the GOP will have to start thinking in these terms, I think.
I heard earlier about the agreement percentage for illegals working in the U.S. and it was like 50%. How the hell can it be that high?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I take your point, but polls consistently show that people aren’t prioritizing social issues in their voting this year; it’s the economy, the deficit, etc., so I am not sure that was the driver this election. [/quote]
Yes, and if those polls were correct then Romney would be taking independents and probably not be losing. My hypothesis does explain the discrepancy, but I have no way of proving it. My guess is that people SAY that economic issues are their top priority, but in reality it is social issues.
Agreed, and I should also clarify that I am not saying that Republicans should go full on far left-wing on social issues. Produce a candidate that will promise to maintain the status quo as far as social liberties. I.e. not overturn Roe v. Wade, tone down the birth control stuff, and support some more gay rights (not necessarily government recognized gay marriage, but some rights or even getting rid of government recognition of marriage altogether), and definitely get rid of the nut jobs like you mentioned and play down religion. I bet if this happens, the Republicans do a lot better in future elections, especially with young people.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I take your point, but polls consistently show that people aren’t prioritizing social issues in their voting this year; it’s the economy, the deficit, etc., so I am not sure that was the driver this election. [/quote]
Yes, and if those polls were correct then Romney would be taking independents and probably not be losing. My hypothesis does explain the discrepancy, but I have no way of proving it. My guess is that people SAY that economic issues are their top priority, but in reality it is social issues.
Agreed, and I should also clarify that I am not saying that Republicans should go full on far left-wing on social issues. Produce a candidate that will promise to maintain the status quo as far as social liberties. I.e. not overturn Roe v. Wade, tone down the birth control stuff, and support some more gay rights (not necessarily government recognized gay marriage, but some rights or even getting rid of government recognition of marriage altogether), and definitely get rid of the nut jobs like you mentioned and play down religion. I bet if this happens, the Republicans do a lot better in future elections, especially with young people.[/quote]
Dr. Matt:
Are we talking about another “Great Communicator”…like Ronald Reagan?
And it seems that they HAVE to “fire-up” young people, correct?
Mufasa
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ll disagree and say it’s because Republicans are too free market, too anti-welfare state (even Mitt), and too scary for Hispanics (immigration).
[/quote]
x2 Especially the immigration deal. [/quote]
That is what it is. I honestly believe that for the most part the entitlement problem will resolve itself if the issue of immigration is dealt with. Children of illegal immigrants and young illegal immigrants want the chance to succeed, when their opportunities are limited what choice do they have but to take advantage sometimes unfairly of the system? That is why the Dream Act was fought for so hard. Obviously, liberal/entitlement states like California will always be a problem.
Social issue wise, being a young person I was surprised with how “conservative” many of my friends are in regard to issues like abortion & religious views. If it is the Latino vote that is wanted Immigration is what must be priority number one.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…tone down the birth control stuff…[/quote]
I think the GOP needs to reform its economic message more than social (see my post above), but this is definitely worth highlighting. Democrats set traps on this issue, to be sure, but the mere fact that Democrats could set traps on this issue in 2012 for Republicans to fumble is absolutely bizarre.
And I’m not talking about the contraception mandate, which is a serious issue - I mean the basic hay Democrats were able to make as some of these GOP weirdos couldn’t even manage a normal convseration on relatively non-controversial stuff here.
And, whatever the case, none of this is Romney’s fault. Before he can run against Obama, he has to come out of the GOP primary, so he has to pass the litmus test currently in place.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Dr. Matt:
Are we talking about another “Great Communicator”…like Ronald Reagan?
And it seems that they HAVE to “fire-up” young people, correct?
Mufasa[/quote]
Pretty much. “Young” people are going to continue to make up a higher percentage of the voting public, and I am 100% certain that they tend to vote democrat is because of social issues. You get a candidate with the charisma and oratory skills of Reagan that is willing to tone down what most view as traditional Republican views on social issues at least to the point of keeping things the way they currently are (and let’s be honest here, that would probably happen anyway) and the Republican party will begin to do much better. Also, relevant celebrity endorsements are a must. Young people care more about what Jay-Z has to say then Clint Eastwood, despite how much ass Clint Eastwood kicks.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Dr. Matt:
Are we talking about another “Great Communicator”…like Ronald Reagan?
And it seems that they HAVE to “fire-up” young people, correct?
Mufasa[/quote]
Pretty much. “Young” people are going to continue to make up a higher percentage of the voting public, and I am 100% certain that they tend to vote democrat is because of social issues. You get a candidate with the charisma and oratory skills of Reagan that is willing to tone down what most view as traditional Republican views on social issues at least to the point of keeping things the way they currently are (and let’s be honest here, that would probably happen anyway) and the Republican party will begin to do much better. Also, relevant celebrity endorsements are a must. Young people care more about what Jay-Z has to say then Clint Eastwood, despite how much ass Clint Eastwood kicks.[/quote]
The social issues thing will help with women too.
As I see it, how important the Latino vote is depends on where they are increasing. Mostly in GOP states with the exception of swing state Florida and California and I don’t see Cali going red for a very very very long time.
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ll disagree and say it’s because Republicans are too free market, too anti-welfare state (even Mitt), and too scary for Hispanics (immigration).
[/quote]
x2 Especially the immigration deal. [/quote]
That is what it is. I honestly believe that for the most part the entitlement problem will resolve itself if the issue of immigration is dealt with. Children of illegal immigrants and young illegal immigrants want the chance to succeed, when their opportunities are limited what choice do they have but to take advantage sometimes unfairly of the system? That is why the Dream Act was fought for so hard. Obviously, liberal/entitlement states like California will always be a problem.
Social issue wise, being a young person I was surprised with how “conservative” many of my friends are in regard to issues like abortion & religious views. If it is the Latino vote that is wanted Immigration is what must be priority number one.[/quote]
Yeah, demographically that ship has already sailed. We’re going to need to ‘gentle up’ on the ant-welfare talk. If we go broke, we go broke. Talk about what’s going to happen, but do exactly what the democrats did, offer nothing to fix it. Americans love to hear about the financial cliff, and even worry about it, but dude ‘free stuff’ is hard to give up. Outside of some completely cosmetic cutting of ‘fraud and waste’ (achieving nothing) they don’t actually want their stuff touched. Big reductions in the nanny state are going to have be some future generation’s problem. In the meantime, begin to bring in hispanics. Let them become small business owners, taxpayers, etc. They’re here and they’re having plenty of children.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And, whatever the case, none of this is Romney’s fault. Before he can run against Obama, he has to come out of the GOP primary, so he has to pass the litmus test currently in place. [/quote]
Definitely. Romney ran a great campaign and there wasn’t much that he could have done better. The bottom line is that this election is showing that there is some fundamental aspect of the Republican views that does not click with American voters, to the point that they will choose to keep a guy like Obama in office rather then elect a man like Romney. I do find comfort in the fact that instead of casting blame and getting nasty, we are discussing what went wrong and why, so maybe the problem can be fixed.
Screw the birth control issue. You want your birth control? You buy it. I’d watch the Republican party burn to the ground before I’d vote for a party that supports the HHS mandate.
Another thing to think about : the rural / urban dichotomy.
Looking at the electoral map, it seems that Megalopolis voted Obama tonight.