It’s not about demographics, it’s about economics
Although polls don’t find differences between men and women on what everyone calls “women’s issues,” they do find differences on policy issues we don’t usually consider in terms of gender. Women are more liberal on health care, on defense spending and on anti-poverty programs. A smarter approach to abortion, however necessary for Republicans, won’t change that.
The common theme here is that the current Republican economic message isn’t very compelling to any of these groups. If Republicans addressed that problem, they would find their numbers improving in all of these groups, and outside them too. White, working-class voters, who supported Romney for president but seem to have had low turnout, might have shown up in greater numbers if Republicans had retooled on economics.
Men and women, whites and Hispanics, the young and the middle-aged: All of them want politicians to offer a practical agenda to create jobs, raise wages, and make health care and higher education more affordable. Most of them aren’t wedded to liberal answers on those issues. They will take them over nothing, and that’s what Republicans have been giving them.
Republicans are unlikely to return to majority status, or even keep their current strength, unless they do better. Looking at voters in categories of race, sex and age won’t help them do that.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
It’s about: Ho Ho Ho!
brewcrew67 on November 13, 2012 at 10:14 AM
The problem is us conservatives need to shed the “rich white guy who only cares about the rich” image first.
How? Well first point out that the other side also is “rich”
watertown on November 13, 2012 at 10:18 AM
We have to start by either caving on tax increases for the 1%, or doing a much better job defending against the class-warfare arguments used by the Democrats in every election. We had an economic plan and argument, but it got drowned out in the class-warfare messaging by the Democrats that we never refuted effectively.
Was it really worth losing this election to stand on principle against a small tax increase on a small number of people? Imagine if the GOP had “caved” on this in early 2011 and taken it away from Obama and the Democratic Senate candidates as a campaign argument. By the time of this election, we would have had numbers to show that the tax increase did nothing to close the deficit, and then Obama would have had to admit that either massive tax hikes on the middle class are necessary to feed his massive government, or admitted thatthe massive government needed to be cutback.
rockmom on November 13, 2012 at 10:18 AM
I disagree.
99% of certain demographic groups voted for Obama with no idea whatsoever about anything to do with economics and they would continue to do so no matter how badly the economy is mismanaged.
HotAirian on November 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM
The leftists believe that their side got rich looking out for the little guy whilst our side got rich screwing over the little guy. Facts or critical thinking never enters into the thought process of leftist voters.
HotAirian on November 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM
As I said in another thread, there are an awful lot of hard working middle class people who have noticed that middle class incomes have stagnated even though corporate profits are way up. Plus expenses like health care are growing in leaps and bounds. These are the central features of the Dem class-warfare message.
The reasons for those trends are many, and some of them government policy cannot change, but until the GOP starts talking to those people and acknowledging the issues, those working families will continue to vote Democrat. Talking about cuts to capital gains taxes, lower dividend taxes, and income tax cuts to the top 10% does not resonate with such families because based on past experience they don’t think those policies will help them any.
AngusMc on November 13, 2012 at 10:35 AM
It really is about the demographics, Ramesh. Conservatives are fighting an uphill battle, and the hill gets higher and steeper every election cycle. Personal responsibility isn’t easy to sell unless it appeals to the spirit of rugged individualism that most Americans once had, and taps the shame that should still envelop the idea of being on the dole. Unfortunately, the progressives have been teaching our children that nebulous community should replace individualism and that there is no shame in welfare. Meanwhile, those who are naturally predisposed to believe these things are overwhelming us through immigration and higher reproduction rates in general.
Our principles require responsibility, hard work, and hard decisions, but will guarantee the success of the country for the long term. People want gratification and security now, and don’t believe the country could fall. They don’t even think about liberty anymore, because they don’t really know what it is.
stvnscott on November 13, 2012 at 10:39 AM
Like Palin said – It was a choice of Free Stuff vs Freedom.
The GOP couldn’t/wouldn’t explain what freedom meant – and Obama already showed what free stuff would be to his voters.
ChuckTX on November 13, 2012 at 10:47 AM
It is a tough slog to try to convince people who believe that the sole reason government solutions fail is because government just isn’t big enough.
TexAz on November 13, 2012 at 10:48 AM
Ponnuru is a pretty smart guy, but this is just a weak argument. It’s not the messaging…it’s the message. Voters don’t want to hear that we can’t keep giving them free stuff, so they are voting for the people who are pledging to keep the gravy trains running on time.
No amount of “messaging” is going to change the reality that we’ve gone from a nation of producers to a nation of takers.
We make fun of Liberals who used to console themselves with the argument that things aren’t unpopular because people don’t like them, but because the things haven’t been presented in the right way (eg Obamacare). Now here some in the supposed Conservative Brain Trust are saying the same damned thing about Romney’s loss. Weak tea, Ramesh…weak tea.
JohnTant on November 13, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Just going to throw this out there that talking about things like Chinese currency manipulation muddles conservatives’ economic message.
theperfecteconomist on November 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Easy to find out. The GOP controls the house and so the budget. Cut off the social spending and refuse to raise the debt limit. Going to happen sometime anyway. Runaway inflation is on the horizon and that is no fun.
BullShooterAsInElk on November 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Errr, thats exactly what romney did and Obowow didnt do. Obowow won by promising free vagajay cream, gay marriage and illegal amnesty. Well ladies, the KY will help when the economy comes to screw you.
sheikh of thornton on November 13, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Still more election analysis BS. (Although I agree with Ponnuru more than some others.)
This election was won with razor-thin majorities in a handful of states based on an unprecedented turnout operation. We Do. Not. Need. An. Overhaul. We need better tech to improve our turnout. That’s all. We don’t need to change a single plank in the platform. If you absolutely need a reed to grasp, we could stand not to nominate insane people for senate.
As far as governing, I am quite certain we are not doing everything right, but we’re mostly fine when it comes to ideology, and most of the deviations currently under discussion are worse than the status quo.
alwaysfiredup on November 13, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Chinese currency manipulation is way too complicated a topic for an effective election message. “Safe Toys” is about as much as most people care about China.
alwaysfiredup on November 13, 2012 at 12:43 PM