| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Looking for Obama Republicans
Submitted by craig.kirchoff on Mon, 11/10/2008 - 16:21
Here's to hoping that a few election cycles from now, pundits are on TV predicting the turnout of "Obama Republicans" the same way in which they discussed "Reagan Democrats" this year.
As many of you know, the phrase "Reagan Democrat" refers to those voters who consider themselves Democrats, and usually vote that way, but in 1980 and/or '84, they voted for Ronald Reagan.
Right now, there's no way to know for sure if first-time voters, disaffected Republicans and others will vote for the Grand Old Party in the future, but I wonder if we can work backwards. I wonder if we can get them to vote Republican in the future and MAKE them "Obama Republicans." And being a former Luntzian, I can't help but wonder if we can just communicate to these swing groups better.
Here's my take on two groups of potential "Obama Republicans"...
LATINOS
The Situation
According to exit polls, Hispanics were the ethnic group with the most defections from 2004 to 2008. President Bush's 43% support slid to fewer than 1 in 3 for John McCain. Surely, the immigration debate soured many to the Republican Party, but given that Sen. McCain always supported an "amnesty" program, it seems unlikely it's the only factor. It is also possible that a kinship with Barack Obama's struggle as a minority may have also factored into their voting, but most likely the economy and housing collapse was the most important issue to them.
Going Forward
As Latinos on the East Coast moved to the suburbs during the housing boom, many became small business owners. For example, restaurants, shops and other businesses by Latinos and for Latinos (mostly) have popped up all over Northern Virginia. Now, as small business owners, the Republican Party has a new and powerful argument to make to these voters. Over-taxation, state and federal bureaucracies and a Democratic tax structure that taxes success are new concerns for them.
Sample arguments
- "People in our community need help, but it shouldn't come at the expense of our local businesses."
- "Our government can help those of us who need it without limiting what we, as Americans, can achieve. Our future should be up to us."
FIRST-TIME VOTERS
The Situation
The term "first-time voter" is popular in exit polling, but it may be too broad to be very useful by itself - it'd be helpful to look at the crosstabs based on age, ethnicity, city vs. small town vs. rural, etc. As a general category, though, 69% went to Obama while only 30% went to McCain. Bush pulled in 46% in '04, and 43% in '00 and surely the way in which the increased voter pool will be analyzed going forward. But, even without further details, we can begin to work out how to best communicate to them based on the fact that this was their first voting experience.
Going Forward
The major factor in how this block votes in the future may be the Obama Presidency itself and how it plays out. But that doesn't mean Republican shouldn't be working harder to communicate with them. First, Republicans should look for new channels - better use of the web and social networking, outreach from the grassroots groups, etc. Secondly, newly empowered, this group is hoping to continue guiding their country. With a Democratic House, Senate and White House, it may actually benefit Republicans to keep these voters engaged. Democrats made a tremendous amount of lofty promises in 2008. Make sure voters remember this.
Sample Arguments
- "When we vote, we own a share of America's future. But, that means we have a obligation to demand accountability. Which is why the Republicans lost this last election. When our leaders aren't solving problems, there are repercussions. But, we must not get lazy or complacent. Republican or Democrat, our representatives must know that their jobs are always on the line."
- "In the last election many of us were moved to vote for the first time. However, Washington must be reminded that this will not be the last time we vote. If there isn't economic relief, if there isn't progress in both our safety and America's image overseas, if promises aren't kept there must be more change in Washington."
If you have an idea for another potential group of "Obama Republicans" and/or how best to reach them, post it in the comments.
(2 votes)
- craig.kirchoff's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Promos
Recent blog posts
RedMango
0 comments
lgm
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
In between
0 comments
Ironman
4 comments
John Smith
0 comments
Anita MonCrief
2 comments
Wayne from Jere...
0 comments
John Smith
2 comments
lgm
30 comments
Recent comments
-
venn99
-
RedMango
-
venn99
-
venn99
-
venn99
Search
Links
The American Scene
Conservablogs
Election Projection
FiveThirtyEight.com
Jonathan Martin
Marc Ambinder
Megan McArdle
Patrick Ruffini
Pollster.com
The Foundry
Government Bytes
Race 4 2008
Real Clear Politics
RedState
Ross Douthat
Soren Dayton
Infrastructure
America's Future Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Majority
Club for Growth
Election Journal
Heritage Foundation
ATR Blog
Leadership Institute
NewsBusters
Sam Adams Alliance
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican Liberty Caucus
Washington Watch
National Taxpayers Union
NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs
MyDD
Open Left
Swing State Project
Comments
Remove the Religious Right
You've lost entrepreneurs, and scientists, and professionals.
good luck getting them back.
they are the key to electoral success as they are our innovators. they provided the demoractic innovation, and will continue to, unless you remove the anti-science,anti-engineering faction.
a bigger change than you were looking for, eh?
How come it is the relgious conservatives who are "blamed"
Your side has the religious left, which dresses socialism up in religious drag. They are the backbone of black churches, many Catholics (particulary Latinos) etc and those old-line Protestant churches that are dying out. Many of them are just as "anti-science" and (gasp!) socially conservative as the religious right, except they believe God and the state are one an the same.
check your numbers
religion in general is dying out.
I think it is because the religious left doesn't ask for things that the majority of the country despises and loathes.
Your Smuggness Makes Me Sick
Remove the base of the party? Should it only be a group of fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians?
Heres one for you. As Religion dies out in America, so does our country. Do you not understand that American Values as well as Conservative principles were all handed down to us by the "religious right." If you are talking about the way way way religious right then i dont think they are a large enough portion of the party to mean anything. You are just referring to Christians correct? I dont think you would have the same tone about any other religious group.
I think the best way to snipe the first time and young voters is for the few young conservatives to hit it hard in grass roots campaigns and groups like young republicans. Pushing conservative ideas using history to back up your facts and points are a good way to offset the young liberals knee jerk emotional reactions they have to everything.
You Mean Socially Conservative Ideas?
I'm not sure what kind of historical fact you'd use to back up ideas like being pro-life and defense of heterosexual marriage. If you make an appeal to the U.S.A. being "better" 30 years ago most young people are just gonna hear a lecture or that "you suck and you're ruining America." Nobody gives much credence to the old man shaking his fist from the porch.
A better way would seem to be to engage them in an intellectual debate rather than just proselytize. A lot of younger people, you'd be surprised, love to argue and hash out ideas with other people. You're not going to convince everyone, but the ones sitting on the fence on issues like abortion and gay marriage might be convinced to be more conservative if someone explained why they should support those ideals with arguments at their level.
On the other hand, sticking to some issues like being anti-immigration would be like marching in the face of time and progress.
your illiteratness makes me sick
we still don't have god in our constitution, and thank our founding fathers for that! and all the people who worked post-civil war against the religious right.
I like Christians, they tend to be good people. As a religion, it tends towards lawful good. I would not say the same for my own religion (no, that doesn't mean evil, bakasama!)
Young republicans are thugs, who routinely engage in thuggery. Maybe a better grassroots movement??
American Values were handed down FROM a man who ripped out all references to Jesus' divinity from his bible.
Please no historical revisionism, it really gets on my nerves.
I ask for a Republican party of competence, that refuses to take the "evolution is wrong" stance, that supports stem cell research as the future of our pharmeceutical industry, and a party that does not deliberately and maliciously remove funding from STD research under a misguided "sex should have consequences" regime.
If I do not get it, that's fine. but you will have lost my vote.
Science and Competency first!
"entrepreneurs, and scientists, and professionals"
What would a welfare queen like you know about science or professional life?
Jon, please do better.
Jon, all you do here is come and s#!t on people who are offering ideas and discussions. Yeah, we know how much that worked in the past election, but it isn't moving us anyplace here. We're building...and if you can't argue outside of insults, you're not helping.
Of course, you're free to post all the insults you want here, but you're just hurting the party.
If you don't like the ideas someone is offering, then offer some of your own.
Personally, I would have rephrased RisingTide's point a little differently: "we need to stress that religious dogma not overrule scientific fact when pushing policy (global warming, abstinence vs. comprehensive sex education, evolution etc.) so that we don't drive away intellectuals and scientists."
-Pain
Pain decent point but heres where i disagree
I actually get more offended by Rising Tides anti religious comments. But i agree if you dont like someones arrogant posting then provide an alternative or dissagreement outside of name calling.
and PS, if you are really saying that Global Warming as a man made occurence and Evolution are "scientific fact" then it is not you that Tide is worried about driving away.
I post on streetprophets
my combative postings here are not exactly representative of my religious views. I would be quite happy to discuss more religious things in a more appropriate venue (and I'll try to tone down the hostility by venting at specific policies and ideas, like the deliberate sacrifice of headless babies to the anti-abortion fanatics. Basically, if we harvested organs from these non-viable children while they were still alive, we could save many other kids. but we have to let them die, instead)
I think we're past the point where message tweaking helps
Just sayin'
I think it was said best...
When someone said in another post that basic competency would help greatly. I don't think that hardcore Republicans realize how bad they look. From big items like Katrina and the Iraq War, to even "little" things like sexual misconduct from "Family Values" representatives.
The best example of the lack of competency in the Bush administration was Alberto Gonzalez, consistently saying "I don't recall" to nearly every question. If I said that about an important topic in my line of work, I'd receive paperwork.
And yet, not only was he kept on the payroll, but he was praised! Until you get people who are willing to stand up and call reality as it is, rather than how they wish it to seem, I think you will keep running into a wall, only gaining the support of those 25% or so that still think Bush is doing a "heckuva job".
Engineers: The Handmaidens of SATAN!!
The "Religious Right" really, really hates engineers. Why, I heard stories -- from my enlightened progressive friends, of course -- that the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson would secretly round up engineers and burn them at the stake. "Bridge building sorcerery!", they would shriek, as they would throw balsa wood and T-squares into the fiery pit. "Numbers be damned", shouted Robertson, "Let them and their geometry burn in Hell! Mathematics is the tool of the Devil!".
I don't think my open-minded, peace loving and tolerant progressive friends would make up such a story.
They just hate the engineers...
That predicted disaster for certain levees....
What's driving engineers away
What's driving engineers away is the idea that the Republican party doesn't really care about facts anymore. Facts are the basis on which engineering and science are built. When the religious right pushes for teaching creationism, or abstinence only education, it seriously undermines what used to be a conservative value of results based policy (as opposed to the social experimentation that the liberals favor).
Four stars!
you iz funny mon.
Latino voters
I think it's important to note that 2004 may be an exceptional election w.r.t. Latinos. Dole in 1996 got about 21%. Bush 2000 got 35%. Bush 2004 got 40-44%. McCain got 31-32%. So whether that is a good or bad showing depends on what you are comparing it to.
It seems even in a bad year, the GOP is still winning a third of Latinos. That's darn good compared to most of the 1990s. On the other hand, the Bush administration spent a lot of time trying to do even better, and getting to over 40% regularly would be a big accomplishment. The immigration debate surely didn't help. In 2006, Latinos started the flight from voting GOP. If you look at all House elections in 2006, Latinos went 69-30 to the Democrats. The largest swing of any specific group from 2004 to 2006. By that measure, it looks like 2008 was just a repeat of 2006 with a few extra points for McCain.
Bottom line, this may be an area where Bush overperformed the GOP. Bush's Texas background meant he had a long connection to the Hispanic community. If Jeb is able to run in the future, his background is similar (with the added bonus of a Hispanic wife and children). But otherwise, there aren't many Rs in a position like Bush who naturally fit Hispanic culture and politics.
Final note. There is a big difference between Catholic Hispanics and Protestant Hispanics. The latter are much more Republican than the former.
More related info:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1024/exit-poll-analysis-hispanics
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=220
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/31530694.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Hispanics are big government people.
If the GOP really wants their votes, it will have to become a more big government party. And considering the demographic changes the GOP has unleashed, it will need their votes.
So all that is really left to discuss is - when does the GOP formally toss the small government philosophy under the bus? Because a dozen years from now America will have a socially liberal/fiscally liberal party and a socially conservative/fiscally liberal party.
I dont think so
Republican party should be about maxiumizing freedeom. The no-nothing wing that hates immigrants should be thrown under the bus. The no-nothing crowd thinks by limiting immigrants it can limit the size of goverment. Wrong, because then you have to spend money on IMF and Border Patrol Agents, and more on immigration judges. Its having immigration system that is rational. The immigration system is such a mess because of good ole Ted Kennedy making it based on family rather than ability to work hard. Immigration is what made America powerful nation and without immigration we would no have the economic, millitary we have today.
Will you shut up trying to figure out what Hispanics want
as a group? If you don't see why that's the problem in and of itself well...that's the problem!
Will you shut up, period?
..
I'm not "trying' to do anything. I'm telling the people here with more than two functioning brain cells (that excludes you) what Hispanics want. They want more and bigger government. That is one of those "fact" thingies which you have so many probems with.
Not true. The Latino
Not true. The Latino community isn't really a voting bloc, and if it is, it's one of the least solid in the nation, not to mention it's growing at a tremendous rate. Immigration policy is obviously #1. Beyond that, I'd expect moderate social conservatism and an economic outlook that reflects the socioeconomic status of the community. But these are assumptions, and until you figure out what the concerns actually are, you're surrendering votes.
Catching the Anvil
The GOP has it's arms outstretched to catch the anvil it is being tossed by Eric Cantor, Newt, Sarah Palin, and others who lack a compelling narrative or strategic vision that will caputure swing voters. Until the party can inspire and retain the Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar wing of the party then the DNC will have an easier go of it. As the GOP shrinks into a regional party having a message that plays outside the south and southwest becomes increasingly critical. On the bright side you will have 16 years to work these problems out.
yep, three old DC lifers are the answer
You know, of these three only Powell would have anyone know who he is at the local Dunkin Donuts and I doubt the people there could identify what party he belonged to. At least when Rockefeller was around the libs could suggest we fall in line with someone people knew
I think the Palin divide captures the current difficulty of the
GOP pretty well. Based on my general impressions it seems 2/3 of republicans (religious right) like Palin and consider her a top candidate for the next go round. The other third view her as a lightweight and extremely unqualified to lead the country. Count me as both a person who likes her and believe she would makes a disasterous president. I see a much brighter future for her in broadcasting. It seems she'd be an excellent interviewer /commenter and would likely rise to the top of the cable competition as quickly as Rachel Maddow did.
Can't see which current leader would have broad appeal for the many factions within your party, but suggest maybe T. Pawlenty. Funny how he is ignored when future leader considerations are raised. From my perspective he has pretty strong conservative credentials and remains popular in minnesota, which is still a solid (light) blue state. David Broder recently wrote a good column looking to governors for the future leadership of the GOP.
Republicans would be better
Republicans would be better served in future elections if they were to become more of a "Big Tent" party and be more accepting of the views of others within the party.
Sadly, in the past several years, too many Republicans have become "My Way or the Highway" candidates and refuse to support each other against the Democrat candidate. in fact, they go out of their way to discourage their supporters from backing the frontrunner within their own party.
The leaders of the Christian Right seems to be the worst offenders -- perhaps due to petty rivalries among the various Christian sects. (Evangelicals refuse to support Mormons, etc.)
At this rate NO REPUBLICANS will ever get elected to higher offices, and the entire country will have to suffer, even if most Republicans share the similar views about economic policies, defense and the military, respect for the Constitution and the Flag, raising families, energy: alternative technology programs in conjunction with offshore drilling and nuclear power, etc.
Doesn't matter. Too many Republicans are too small-minded. While we could all profit if we could all pull together, too many Christian Leaders insist of having everything their way or adopt the childish schoolyard attitude "If I can't have my way, then I'm going to take my ball and go home!"
Also, Republicans ought to tolerate the views of others with respect tthe concerns of others about the environment. The same thing applies for some pro-choice views of some candidates. If it isn't right for you -- fine don't do it, but if you yourself are not God, you may be wrong about some things...like when life actually begins... some early stage abortions may be acceptable to our Creator, even if they are not acceptable to you.
What is it with the religous
What is it with the religous bashing lately. Are all of your friends devout born again Christians? Im guessing not so how can you make so many generalizations about a group that encompasses millions of Americans?
Yes Christians would rather support a Conservative or Repub who shares their christian faith, but who is that blind that they would not support a Mormon like Romney faced with an a Democrat alternative? A religious person who would like to support someone of their own faith to me is worth much more than say, someone supporting a candidate based on race...
Also, what do you mean they need to be tolerant of peoples views on global warming and abortion. Im pretty sure you are expressing your intolerance for their faith. People can have views, and especially ones based on their values or religious teachings. Besides when Obama signs the Freedom of Choice Act, hes not just talking about early stage abortions, so im not sure what ur referring to there.
When Can We Tell The Truth
If Liberals are so infatuated with fainness, let me express a thought.
The Hispanic Vote, although traditional as a group, normally tilts Democratic. GW got a larger portion into the mid 40's. Why exactly is it that they tend to vote democratic? The only reason i hear is that they approve of the Democratic policies of lax immigration laws and the possibility of making the borders even more open than they are without worry due to things like sanctuary cities and amnesty for all. But wait a minute?
If thats true, why in the hell should we have to try and cater to a demographic that is in support of breaking our own laws and compromising our own borders?? Is that fair? I think Conservatives need to reframe the debate to convince Liberals to get on board with tighter immigration policies as a matter of fiscal responsibility and sealing the borders as a matter of national security. We shouldnt let the Dems attract a large group of voters with stated policies that disrespect our laws and hurt us financially.
I like this comment
however, I do not believe that the majority of Hispanics LIKE breaking laws. I believe they are as much in favor of more open immigration as the folks aboard the Exodus. The only difference being, we're having a harder time denying entrance to the Hispanics.
Blood and Barricades are political parties in Mexico. Is it any wonder that they want a better life??
I think that the "newly
I think that the "newly arrived" (i.e., non-Cuban) Hispanics tilt Democratic because they are generally working -class and have been seduced into drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid which has convinced them that they can take a short-cut and be on EASY STREET by getting free social services from the Fed if they will vote Democrat., without having to work their way up the old fashioned way. Also, they hope they can drag all their relatives to the front of the line causing other legal immigrant to have to wait -- maybe forever.
In short, the same common everyday greed ,selfishness, and self-love that appeals to whites and blacks will also appeal to Hispanics. This will cause them to vote Democrat every time. Don't kid yourself about why this voting pattern exists.
Just to be clear..
I could be reading this wrong but it seems to me that you're suggesting that Hispanics vote Democratic because they're lazy and expect Dems to give them a hand-out.
I'm from Central California and most Hispanics I know work 40-60 hours a week in hard, manual labor type jobs getting paid a pittance. Some of them are here illegally to be sure but at the same time the businesses(mostly ag and manufacturing) who hire them also do so illegally to keep labor costs down.
So, from my perspective the best way to appeal to this rapidaly growing segment of the population is to not accuse them of seeking the easy way out (merely getting into this country these days is difficult enough, let alone making a living on less than minimum wage) but rather to respect the sacrifice's they have made to come to the U.S. and offer incentives to contribute more and take less.
The whole immigration reform issue aside, the fact is that America is increasingly non-white and the Republican's habit of railing against minorities is not going to help their electoral chances going forward.
Sorry Mr. MacGregor -- I
Sorry Mr. MacGregor -- I didn't mean to sound like a Christian-basher... I am a Christian myself. Not as narrow-minded as some Christians, but a Christian none-the-less.
But, yes, I do have friends who are Christian Evengelicals who voted for Huckabee, and others (Baptists, etc.) who voted for Thompson, but told me that they would stay home rather than vote for McCain if he chose Giuliani/Romney/Tom Ridge as a running mate for their past abortion views -- even if these men declared a change of heart.
To me, this is foolish. It is small minded and narrow minded and the cause is lack of tolerance for the religious views of others. The hell with the US being handed over to Marxists -- they didn't care. They didn't mind delivering this country into the hands of Marxists.
Personally, McCain was a weak candidate to me...but I voted for him and contributed money to his campaign to try to avoid a Marxist president.
But now I hear where polls show10 million Republicans sat home rather than vote in 2008. Only 6 million would have defeated Obama -- but NOOOOOOOOOOOOO -- some of us had to stay home to prove a point. Now look at the results.
See what I mean?
Ah I See
I completely empathize with your point. For a Repub or Religious person to not vote for someones pro life running mate, or even a pro choice Repub like Rudy is absolutely foolish. I think the "rational" among us understand that, as most prominent religious leaders that i know of finally came around for McCain. I guess we never would of known the irrational backlash if McCain picked a pro-choice guy.. But, i do not think them staying home would be due to their intolerance of others religious views. I think most traditional values are pretty universal and i dont know of a religion that ascribes to any form of abortion.
I too voted for McCain not for McCain, but for Conservatives ideas in general. Im pretty skeptical of that 10 million number, but i think its safe to say that at least some repubs stayed home. Remember that a large number of Bush Independents said they went for Obama. And to be honest, with the 8 year media onslaught against Bush and Repubs, coupled with McCain's god-awful campaign im surprised that he even got the 58 million of whatever votes that he did....
As an Obama Republican
First, I am not Latino, but i suspect that Latinos might be a little turned off by people like Bill O'Reilly stating that the problem with America is that Hispanics have a higher birthrate than Caucasians. Just a thought-
As for the Religious Right, I am comfortable with accomodating them, but can't tolerate their "Jesus Uber Alles" rhetoric, barely disguised with the fig leaf of tolerance. Other posters have pointed out that technical professionals like me are completely left cold by the anti-intellectual ferver of the "intelligent Design" and global warming deniers.
Pandering to hispanics equals bigger government.
If you want higher taxes, bigger government, or quotas, higher crime, and crummier schools, then keep pandering to the Hispanics and the illegal aliens crowd. The repulbicans slit their own throasts when they decided that cheaper dry wall and not mowing your own lawn was more important that limiting the size of the government.
Even Republican Hispanics are more liberal than the rest of the Repulbican Party. Trying to appeal to Hispanics means making the Republican party into a Democratic-Lite nanny state big government party. And after the Bush Administration, no one should believe that the U.S. wants or needs to big government political parties.
The Republicans have to face the fact that demographics will bury them. so they can try to keep the brand name going by becoming me-too Democrats or try to find the best way to limit the power of the left in the coming one party state.
Exactly!
If you wish to undestand hispanics/latinos then look out Latin american countries. They always elect socialist or nationalist-socialist candidates based around groupthink political movements, Why do the wealthy individuals in Mexico encourage illegal immigration to the US? Because they do not believe in policies that grow their economy, create wealth, and oppurtunties for lower-income people. They think of them as perpetual peasants whom you have to throw a bone to every now and then. They fear that eventually someone like Chavez will come to power in Mexico and come after them and what they have, so they want to rid themselves of this "excess peasantry" in order to create a "saftety valve" to prevent that from happening.
Religious Foundation?
I respectfully disagree with MacGregor, who seems to be creating his/her own history. While religion has become an important part of American politics, this didn't occur until the Second Great Awakening. Technically, the "American values" handed down by the founders came from characters such as Washington (Deist), Jefferson (Deist), Franklin (Deist), and Hamilton (Athiest). Conservative economic principles really have their foundation in Hamilton.
I am with Craig: the only way forward is to dump the rhetoric for the religious right. They are not showing up at the polls (as evidenced by Calpurnia) unless they have their cake and get to eat it, too. Meanwhile, the rhetoric is alienating a whole new generation of young voters who are notably more socially progressive. It's time to be a party of pragmatists.
Its time to be realist.
Agree its time to be pragmatists because intermountain west is turning Democratic not because Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, California shifted left politcally it because the Republican Party become more dogmatic and intolerant on social issuses. The Republican is losing a Region that was usually Republican because of dogmatic thinking of the Religous wing, Neoconservative Wing.. The liberatain wing will disappaer from the Intermountian West if the GOP keeps moving further right on social policy. .
The Republican should not be nativist, no nothing anti-immigration, anti freedom party because we need start being more idealogically flexilbe on social issuse.
And you've already lost your base
Midwestern republicans and New England Republicans are gone.
Is it any wonder that Libertarians get no love from the party?
The RR drove everyone else out!
exactly
the old republican line of "return the issue to the states" doesnt really hold water.
most people who say they are libertarian (like me) dont actually want more state influence in some cases. we're libertarian in the sense that we want ALL forms of government (including the states) to get the fuck out of our lives...gay marriage, marijuana, etc.
if the republican party ever wants to stop being the party of old, white, rich, racist, and homophobic white men, its going to have to change its views.
Obama Republicans
I know of five specific individuals who are registered "Independent." When asked, they refer to themselves a conservatives and occasionally as "Republican." The problem is that all five started out as registered Democrats, and when pushed to the wall, have all voted Democrat. All five ended up voting for Obama. Three of them confessed that they liked the idea of "being a part of history in the making." So, despite how people like to label themselves or how conservative they fancy themselves, there usually is some innate need to run back to their liberal roots. Maybe it just feels familiar... that's what they knew in their past and it's what feels comfortable. Since I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, maybe these folks just can't endure the idea of not voting with the herd. Possibly, they have no real concept of what it means to be conservative or Republican. They like certain Republican ideas (smaller government, fiscal restraint, et al), but they don't like the "hard" parts like pro-life means no abortion any time for any reason, etc. Consider what implication this might have if these folks are contacted by pollsters. My gut instinct is that there are also a lot of registered Republicans who have no idea what it means to be Republican.
what being registered republican means...
is that you get to vote in the republican primary.
that's all folks.
If you want to have any influence on local politics, I'd suggest you register democratic. that way, you can vote in an election that matters.
hmmm
I am registered Republican, but voted (D) in 2004 and 2008 after two decades of voting (R). Both of my crossovers are directly attributable to the invasion of Iraq. I guess you could say it has become my "single issue". When there's an (R) running who is not a supporter of the invasion , then I will give serious consideration to coming "home"
Democrat who voted republican last year
I'm looking for good solutions first, parties second. Of course, in congressional races, I will take into account the general lean of the party -- who wants to spend congress' time on stupid issues like gay marriage??
If you can run people who are pro-science and anti-nepotism, you would be more likely to get my vote.
Down with the Kleptocracy!
As an interesting note: most of the people I know on kos voted Republican in that race. He was the more progressive candidate, and the Democratic machine decided not to have a primary.