...if it abandoned the religious right and changed it’s stance on social issues like gay marriage and abortion?
Good question. I guess I'd say no since the GOP isn't surviving now with them. I can't see how they can afford to cut the most energetic and committed part of their base loose when they're already a minority party to the max. Then again, it's not working with them either. And the religious right, as it's been known, is getting old and dying off. For the most part, young Christians don't share the RR's fervor for social wedge issues. They really need to try something new. As a loyal Republican Rush is right to hope that Obama fails as that's really the only thing that can bring that party back from the dead.
I think they could. I was wondering if the Democrats could survive that move. A lot of the Democratic voters were independents or conservative Democrats. A lot of folks that stopped believing that the GOP was really the party of small government. If the GOP moved in front on issues like this, they could steal a number of voters who are conservative Democrats.
I don't think the GOP stance on abortion and gay marriage cost them the Presidential, House and Senate elections in 2008.
I voted no, but that's not entirely true. It could "survive" as national party, the same way it survived as a national party for the 48 years between Roosevelt and Reagan, when churches preached Social Gospel, the New Deal, and Christian Patriotism. Without a significant majority of Christians, Republicans would go back to the Rockefeller corporatist insignificant minority days. The Wall Street Democrats would welcome it as the party they knew and loved, but it would never be a major force. Now I should say that even if they are often grouped, gay marriage and abortion are vastly different issues. Abortion is first and foremost a Catholic cause, and opposition to abortion is around 50%, growing, and national. Opposition to gay marriage is more popular currently, but it's a Mormon, Muslim, and (to a lesser extent) Evangelical issue, it's more regional, and its popularity is waning. (It's a region that encompasses 85% of the country, but it's not the entire country.)
I wonder, did we have threads in here questioning whether the Democratic party could survive if they cut off their liberal base after Bush's victories? It is way, WAY too early to say that Republican party is a "minority party" or "isn't surviving" etc. They took a massive beating because of a huge public relations problem thanks to the Bush administration. Let's see where they are in 2012, or even 16 before we start saying they are a dead party.
No, because Bush's victories were by relatively small margins. A few hundred votes in Florida in 2000 or 10,000 (?) votes in Ohio in 2004 and you have a different result. With Obama, you could take out 7% off Obama's totals in every single state and he *still* wins. Add to that the issue of the GOP becoming more and more of a regional party that is losing ground both politically and demographically in every region of the country except the deep south, and you have more of a structural problem than a cyclical problem. That said, to answer the original question - I think gay marriage will go pretty soon. It's just not a winning issue over time for the GOP. Abortion is still 50/50, and that should be enough to hold the social-issues part of the base without annoying the fiscal-issues portion.
The Corporatist Republicans as you call them did win four presidential elections in that time. I think if the Republicans go back to being Eisenhower Republicans they could still do OK.
I think more people side with them on gay marriage so I don't see how flipping on that issue helps anything.
Eisenhower and Nixon won because we had just come through Truman (more destructive and less popular than Bush) and Johnson (more destructive and barely more popular than Bush). While Democrats can be counted on to overreach, warmonger, and generally destroy their credibility with the American people, if I'm advising the Republicans on how to build a winning coalition, I wouldn't base all my strategy on waiting for that to happen. Eisenhower should be held out as an anamoly in American politics. He was a true moderate, was truly non-ideological (except maybe in aversion to war), and was incredibly popular for most of his term. He joined the Republican Party right before he ran for President. There was no great "Eisenhower Republican" movement, like there was for the Rockefeller Republicans, Goldwater Republicans, and Reagan Republicans.
I think you're wrong. If you're not, you will be soon. Support for gay marriage won a majority in a recent ABC poll and a plurality in another national poll. Only people over 40 are majority anti-gay marriage. Every new poll shows support for gay marriage increasing.
Please link to these polls. Most of the votes on this topic have gotten shot down, even in California, of all places. TIA
But on the flip you can say that Clinton won because GH Bush did a terrible job domestically and was uninspiring. Obama won because GW Bush did a terrible job. At the same time if things hadn't gone so far south for Carter Reagan might not have won. Ideological movements are important but you still have to count on the other party not doing well otherwise there would be no reason for the electorate to switch. I agree with you about Eisenhower being a true moderate, although I think a lot of Rockefeller Republicans also considered themselves Eisenhower Republicans. In terms of a movement the Republicans would benefit from looking at Eisenhower and following a less ideological and more pragmatic view if they want to return to power.
Is that even possible??? I'm a 33 year old republican but am not sure what would happen were the Republican party to drop the RR. I personally think the RR is going about alot of their business the wrong way. But thats a topic for another thread. I do agree with some from above that think the democratic conservatives could swing over. So who knows?? I am pretty certain though that if the republican party dropped the RR that they wouldn't go over to the democratic side.
Very possible, but I think it's premature to say that losses in party prominence following one of the most disastrous presidents in history (in terms of public opinion if nothing else) and during a terrible economy is equal to a party becoming a regional one or a dying one. Let's just wait and see. I also think it's wishful thinking on the part of social liberals that WANT to believe it is social issues that has sunk the republicans. While I tend to agree that gay marriage is a losing fight over the next 10 years, I don't think they've lost much over gay marriage or abortion. They ran a man with little public charisma against a man with tremendous charisma during an election cycle in which every card was against them.
