San Diego-based Gina Loudon, a conservative talk show host, asked this yesterday via Facebook:
What votes would it take for the GOP to beat Hillary? Why?
A. Independent/ moderates
B. Women & minority vote
C. Youth vote
D. Motivate conservatives & libertarians
This is a thoughtful question. My answer is simple; “E– Democrats”. Let me explain: I’m not interested in a Republican winning the White House as much as I’m interested in restoring the principles of a free society in these United States. That won’t happen with a divided electorate.
When I said, “Democrats”, you’d have thought I urinated in the Holy Water– that is where I think partisan activists are blowing it. Keep in mind that most partisan voters are not activists. They don’t care about the party platform that much, they aren’t ideologically rigid, and they want to get behind a vision which makes America free and prosperous. Some Democratic voters believe in the Second Amendment, secure borders, and the sanctity of human life. Some Republican voters are pro-choice, accepting of gay marriage, and believe in fanatical protection of civil liberties. Engaging those partisan voters and selling the vision is how Governor Jerry Brown and Mayor Kevin Faulconer got elected.
I’ve only seen two influential Presidents in my lifetime and both won by bucking their Party’s Establishment: Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. LBJ didn’t stand for a re-election, Nixon was impeached (and didn’t win a majority of the popular vote), Carter was a one-term President, Geo. HW Bush lost his re-election, Clinton didn’t win a majority of the popular vote and neither did Geo. W Bush.
Reagan’s Presidency was “transformational”. It was a coalition which included “Reagan Democrats” who thought their own party was pandering to special interests. Reagan’s economic policies released the power of the market economy, “rising the tide” for all boats. His Presidency was so transformational that it ensured a win for the “establishment” republican, VP Geo HW Bush, set up the “Republican Revolution” in the 1994, mid-term Congressional elections, and paved the way for George W. Bush’s victory. Many “Reagan Democrats” are registered Republicans today because of the way Reagan could articulate conservative principles and bring Americans together around them.
Obama’s Presidency may be transformational (I hope not) but he followed the “Reagan Way” in his 2008 campaign. I remember his call for “Obamacans” (Republicans who endorse or vote for him) and they responded in 2008. National Review columnists Chris Buckley and Jeffrey Hart, Bush’s Secretary of State Colin Powell, Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill, Bush’s SEC Chairman William Donaldson, Reagan’s Solicitor General Charles Fried, Bush’s Press Secretary Scott McClellan, and California Republican Gubernatorial candidate Nell Kashkari were some of the noteworthy “Obamacans” in 2008.
Both Reagan and Obama tapped into general discontent in their 1980 and 2008 elections and positioned themselves as “different” from their party–that resonated with voters of the opposing party. Neither Reagan nor Obama hid who they were. Reagan convinced some members of the mostly liberal party that his libertarianish ideology was good for the country. Obama convinced some members of the mostly conservative party that his collectivist ideology was good for the country. Note that I said some voters in the opposition party but winning “some” is all that is needed for a mandate.
The lesson I’ve learned from this is that candidates need to engage ALL voters but stick to their principles. There are some Democratic voters how have lost trust in their party’s vision on economic issues, cultural issues, and national security. Those disenfranchised Democrats might take a chance on a Republican who appears to transcend party lines and has a vision for all Americans, regardless of political party. If that happens, and our pro-freedom policies are successful, it will have a decades-long effect on the electorate.
It’s not going to be enough to squeak out a win against the Democratic nominee to restore these United States to the principles of of a free society; we need a mandate. To earn that mandate, our nominee has to sell our vision to some Democratic voters. THAT is how we restore America in 2016.
Comments 17
That is a very interesting headline coming from a man who claims to eschew “Identity Politics.”
In totally unrelated news, a lifelong Democrat in my office just donated to Rand Paul.
Good point, Brian. But 2016 may be different. 1980 and 2008 both featured an economic collapse of sorts that made people question their original party loyalties. 2016 may be transformational where people doubt their party loyalties because of the choices each Establishment is presenting.
Author
I hate “identity politics” HQ so the headline is misleading. I think you know what I’m trying to say in the article though
Brian,
I do understand what you were saying, but I couldn’t resist the dig. This is a blog afterall.
I think you find in Presidential and Guberbatorial politics, even to a lesser extent races for Mayor, that if a candidate is perceived to be strong enough in character and integrity while bringing a message of optimism, partisanship becomes secondary and the public will rally to that candidate. I believe what the current Republican candidates, and those from 2008 and 2012, are missing is that message of optimism. The last President elected without it was Carter and that was a unique situation due to Watergate and the Nixon pardon.
Non-sense…….It will take an event of epic proportion to derail Clinton…………Carter got screwed by Reagan Black Opps…….What matters is who can muster up a big wooley dog with a swooping tail to wag…….
Soros did Cunningham, and Hearst did Patty………If that fails then I’m sure we can have a voter fraud nite in florida……or hell how about some Martial Law in Texas………Votes and voters like Poly Hacks are mindless……….
Brian, Provocative…it’s out of the box alright..but I truly like your willingness to go there.
Issue however, My Friend- “Neither Reagan nor Obama hid who they were.”
I agree with Reagan…and we had the 60’s and 70’s, including his Governorship in CA to assess Reagan. Obama is a sham…from his two whimsical auto biographies, the national media’s total recalcitrance and failure to conduct any reputable journalistic rigor into his remarkably shady, often lackluster and contrived past…let’s not forget David Axelrod’s revelation of Obama’s lying profoundly on what we now know was his original position on DOMA. (First a coward, and now a liar…) People rode the manic wave in the novel idea of voting for an African American president…ostensibly regardless of how unimpressive and now how galatcally feckless he has been.
I do believe the GOP can perhaps snare some of the Dems that see with their own eyes the increasingly dangerous times we are in as a result of the “lead from behind” disaster brought about by BHO. ISIS, tens of thousands of illegals crashing the southern border, a hegemonic Russia and defiant China, that question our alliance resolve, and Iran racing toward a nuclear weapon and alienating Israel.
But if we’re lucky, Rand Paul will sway them with “fortress America” ideas and they can feel good about “Imperial” America receding on the international security stage…That’s also very attractive to the increasingly progressive left. We can add that to growing list of policies and ideologies that increasingly blur the New GOP and Democrats together.
Call me nostalgic — I remember a GOP that was proudly, boldly, and fundamentally ideologically distinct from the Democratic Party. We had clear and pronounced positions that uniquely aligned us as a moral, ethical, and philosophical vanguard alternative to a progressively decaying and intellectually stunted social progressive Leftist agenda…(exhibit A- Detroit)
Abandoning defined marriage, adopting euphemisms for actual abortion policies, and retreating and acquiescing on vital defense and security issues…these sound like solid starting points to find common ground — I’ll bet we could get more voters if we seriously consider greater gun control, higher taxes, ignore existing immigration law, and completely support the ACA…if more voters is the goal, that might do it. We could be the Republican Pepsi to the Democrats’ Coke…
This isn’t meant to be entirely snarky (but, a little snarky 🙂 ) The concern is tacking left isn’t a winning strategy for a nation suffering under the blunders during the last nearly 7 years of the irresponsible Left. If a little shift to the left is good, then a big shift must be better, right?
Politics is compromise (you better than most have convinced me of that…)…but without anchor points of conviction, its just philosophical and expedient tumble weeds wrapped in an illusion of pragmatism.
The fact that you’re thinking, talking and writing about it though is encouraging. It’s a real conundrum…how much conviction is one willing to forgo to attain the desired sweet spot of compromise?
Founding Father,
…”progressively decaying and intellectually stunted social progressive Leftist agenda…(exhibit A- Detroit).”
Do you really want to compare the economies of blue states vs. red states? You could start by looking at which states get more in assistance from Washington. D.C. than they pay in federal taxes (predominantly red states) and which states pay more than they get back (predominantly blue states).
With the exception of the Grand Canyon, and given their druthers the Republicans would probably fill it in and build condos, I can’t think of much I would miss if all of the red states seceded.
HQ-
Baltimore, Detroit, Camden, Chicago, Compton, Geary, New York…California for that matter..all Dem controlled…all disasters…blacks killing blacks at rising levels, and black pols (and pseudo-intellectual limousine liberals) blaming white cops…They are Q.E.D for failed liberal policies-now that’s progressive!
If the Red states seceded, who would the Blue Takers take from? You like Red states and the people in them because they fuel all the Lib agendas…as illegals poor into the country, they take from revenue that could support Americans; education, medical, infrastucture, police, fire, public parks…this is good government…but they don’t produce, except votes for power-maniacal liberal elitists.
Regarding Red states, I’d recommend you don’t bite the hand that literally feeds your voting power base…you need Red states to feed, house, care, indoctrinate and otherwise tend to your freeloading constituents.
Liberalism…a noble cause until they exhaust other people’s money.
FF,
I think you have it exactly backwards when it comes to who the “takers” are and it really isn’t close:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8#!IpqnG
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
Author
FF– please reread the second to last paragraph; I have no interest in hiding who we are. I’m interested in that “happy warrior” who wants to articulate constitutional principles into a vision Democratic voters can see.
Winning the election won’t be enough. We need “buy-in” if the Republic is to be restored
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-americans-get-gov-t-benefits-82m-households-medicaid
Don’t conflate what state governements may do with federal subsidies, and what individuals actually receive (the vast majority being democrats…). Except for eligibility for a federal student grant based on my families’ income, I haven’t nor currently receive a dime for just “showing up.” Yet millions of Americans pay billions in taxes for services they don’t/can’t use, and also many are forced to pay additional private K-12 school tuition as the public schools now force liberal indoctrination vice a traditional education. How many children of Republicans get free housing, medical care, food stamps, tuition grants, low rate business loans, “equal opportunity” quotas, and Obama phones? Yet, many Republican families can’t afford college, or aren’t supplemented with federal subsidies so they can pusue another opportunity. Nope…they’re too busy fueling the Leftist Utopia…
Brian,
How many “pro-freedom” Dems are there left? I agree with you the divide is wide and appears unbreachable less some sweeping uniting revival;
In the Age of Obama, the Leftists, and their media enablers, are embolden with their accelerated lurch to the progressive fringe. I remember the Sam Nunns and the Bob Kerreys…even Jim Webb was palitable on some issues. But when the mainstream Democrats are led by the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and they prop up a BHO, HRC, and an Elizabeth Warren, nothing about any of these people remotely denotes “Pro-Freedom.” In fact, I would argue they, and the people who support, endorse, and propel them, reek of more control and more centralized power.
How precisely will the Republican promote a vision for “all Americans” when to do so is ostensibly to abandon long time and staunch Republicans (conservatives) to do it? Are the conservatives the only ones who are to compromise? If the local GOP is any indicator, then I’m afraid we know the answer to that. We all know the calculus for a Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, or a Ted Cruz- Abandon the conservative ideals; what is the calculus for Rand Paul or Jeb Bush? Do you see either of them abandoning more Libertarian/RINO views to embrace conservatives? Sadly, I think not. If the tact is to just ignore or try to drown out conservatives as was the case locally, the Republicans won’t even leave the starting gate. It may take a combo ticket where the POTUS and VPOTUS capture all vital issues to the satisfaction of the entire spectrum of stakeholders…not just the political pragmatism class.
Author
“How many “pro-freedom” Dems are there left?”
Plenty. They are in your parish, on the job, and on your cul-de-sac. I’m not talking about elected Dems, I’m talking about the rank and file. There are registered Democrats who are:
1- pro- Second Amendment
2- pro-Life
3- want to win the GWOT
4- pro-Israel
5- against illegal immigration
Find them, engage them, and win them over to a candidate in 2016. That’s how we change the direction of the country
Brian,
Perhaps….however, these “Chupacabra” of the 2016 electorate still voted for BHO…twice…and while they may be for one or two of the issues you listed, they were swayed or cajoled to forgo those convictions for the likes of the ACA, and tacitly protecting a dispicable figure in Eric Holder (The most dangerous and anti-American Attorney General in the history of the Republic) during Fast & Furious and his war on CIA officers (the same who were fighting the GWOT) .
I truly like the optimisim though…it’s refreshing.
Yet nearly 100K registered Republicans have left the RPSDC in the last 7 plus years… I’m confident they staunchly support at least 4 of 5 issues on your list…and of course vital issues you didn’t list; thousands may have even walked precincts and donated money…but we couldn’t even keep the ones we already had…I’m sure SD County, while unique demographically and registration-wise, is probably indictive of many counties across the nation…those 85-100K multiply exponentially across the nation into millions of disaffected Republicans…I would think easily more than the Chupacabras subset list above…yet we (The GOP) abandoned them…I know, because they are in my parish, at my job, and in my cul-du-sac…and I have spoken to scores if not hundreds at various events.
The door swings both ways; as long as we prop up and support cronies and political opportunists more interested in the “inside game” within our own local, state, and national organizations, sadly these “Chupacabra” voters will most likely steer clear of any GOP nominees.
Author
We don’t disagree about former registered Republicans but watch this:
I’m not trying to win an election; I’m trying to restore the Republic.
The former Rep’s aren’t my concern for constitutional government– selling Dems is
E: Americans
Its the economy stupid.