The GOP's focus on social, cultural, and religious issues cost its candidates dearly among upscale voters

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... there are two Souths. There is a "New South," which includes Virginia, North Carolina, and, to a lesser extent, Georgia. In this South, which has lots of suburbs, transplants, and younger college graduates, Obama and other Democrats won or ran well above the norm for their party. In the older South, which has more small-town and rural voters, fewer transplants, and a more downscale electorate, Obama actually performed worse than Kerry.

In general, in the higher-growth segments of our country, Republicans lost ground, prevailing only in small towns and rural areas. When Democrats win the suburbs, Republicans are in trouble.

Republicans have lost an enormous amount of support among upscale voters, basically just breaking even among those with household incomes above $50,000 a year, a traditional GOP stronghold. Similarly, McCain's losing to Obama among college graduates and voters who have attended some college underscores how much the GOP franchise is in trouble. My hunch is that the Republican Party's focus on social, cultural, and religious issues -- most notably, fights over embryonic-stem-cell research and Terri Schiavo -- cost its candidates dearly among upscale voters.

...

Those who write off the 2008 election by saying that Republican candidates weren't conservative enough are in denial. They are political ostriches, refusing to acknowledge that the country and the electorate are changing and that old recipes don't work any more.

Obama's message and agenda were a far cry from those of the Democratic Party of a generation or two ago, but the Republican Party's message and agenda haven't changed much other than becoming even more fixated on cultural issues and tax cuts.

...

The dialogue about what the Republican Party is and where it should go will be driven over the next couple of years not by Republican members of Congress or governors or the party apparatus, but by the GOP's presidential contenders for 2012, who will be fanning out across the country before the month is over. The question is whether the party's leaders and members will be listening. Will they be open to new approaches to dealing with a dramatically changed country? Or will they simply say, "Back to the Future"?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/...081115_6386.php

[NickD 203]

The old south was practically all democratic, folks down there still hated Lincoln that was part of the republican party. But there was so many party splits back then, the republican party by name only that Lincoln was part of only lasted a few years, so difficult to say whether Lincoln was part of the current republican or democratic party. But the republicans of today like to claim Lincoln as one of their own.

To gain control of the south in the early 60's, republicans went religious, hell it worked for 40 years, but maybe now time to do some rethinking.

After WW II, the republicans called the democrats war mongers and running the country deep in debt by wasteful spending, so how many undeclared wars did we have since then, and who was in charge? And what about wasteful spending?

In my deepest thought on this subject, just can't imagine anyone being a die hard republican or democrat for the matter, not only in federal elections, but in state, county, and city elections as well. Both have their share of incompetence and some are down right crooks. Voting for third party candidates is just my way of saying, I don't approve of either, but a wasted vote. Declared myself an independent a long time ago. Feel Eisenhower and Kennedy were good presidents, been downhill, way downhill, ever since.

[rebeccajo 14]

Governance should be about governance and not about moral issues that are shaded grey due to different religious beliefs.

The 'revolt' against religious neo-conservatism in government is about people realizing that simple fact. It's not an indication that our society is corrupt or morally bankrupt. I'd daresay that many informed voters now realize that certain idealogies, inflicted on us all, threaten other idealogies that are supposed to be protected.

[Peikko 1,575]

Indeed. However, it seems that some people also haven't recognized this fact.

[Danno 1,228]

I suppose with so many Campaigns being run about the country, one could point to any one campaign to make their point but let me just focus on the "biggie" for the moment.

Name for me one time Johnny Mac brought up: Guns, God, Gays, Abortion, Prayer in school in any debate?

With the exception of choosing a conservative VP johnny Mac stayed away from the Religious-Right.

To Pretend that the GOP did the old "tried and true" method of appealing to the base... and it failed

is absolutely not true. McCain had no base.

Now it might be true going forward as demographics change but as for this race; it's rather remarkable Johnny Mac did as well as he did... considering.

I Admit, I watch very little TV and it is possible during the stump-speeches he was railing on ABOUT Obamas hard line stance on abortion or about his views on what the second amendment means and other issues but I never heard it, do you?

Calling Barack a socialist hardly equates to pandering to the religious right.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How did the Christian Right become so focused on bedroom morality while ignoring other issues like social justice and the environment? That's where they have failed. Evangelicals are now more divided as many of them are showing a more balanced concern on all issues.

Edited November 15, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[rebeccajo 14]

Here ya go, Danno.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

upscale = work

[Danno 1,228]

Here ya go, Danno.

Thanks for posting that, I did not recall that moment in McCains campaign.

Have you got anything else?

[IAMX 3,055]

Here ya go, Danno.

Wonder how much he's smirking like that now after getting walloped in the elections.

"We have to change the culture of America"..

Who's "we"?

[rebeccajo 14]

Guns

Religion

Gays

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

2008 - McCain capitulates to the Agents of Intolerance:

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I guess all those folks who voted to ban gay marriage in California did so because they adhere to a culturally liberal social and anti-religious agenda.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

More agents of intolerance,

against the outcome of a democratic vote

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah, poor Californians. Having put their tolerance on display, they surely deserve better.