General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

[cspan37421]

I realize a libertarian candidate theoretically is conservative fiscally and liberal socially, but we all know third party candidates have no shot.

Let me ask you this, do you think that the reason they have no shot is that their politics don't appeal, or that both major parties marginalize them in a variety of ways (such as the commission on presidential debates). Seems to me it could be a chicken-egg problem. The commission says you have to poll at 15% or something like that to be included. But it's hard to poll that high unless your message can share the stage with the messages of the D and R parties.

The average voter may not know them at all. I'm sure those of us who follow things do, but we're not typical.

I understand that our system may be designed so that there's a natural tendency to gravitate toward a 2-party system. But I suspect it's being helped along to achieve that end as well.

[luvdahops]

Everyone keeps on pointing to some GOP politicians who are "moderate" who might be candidates in 2016. Well, just so we are all clear, here is how Chris Christie and Marco Rubio stand on the issues.

Here is Rubio's page from "On The Issues" a great site for collecting what candidates say in their own words and through their own votes. And here is Christie's page. Among the highlights...

Abortion:
Christie: "I'm pro-life, I believe in exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, but I do believe that life is precious and should be protected." (From an interview on CNN on June 15, 2011). "I am pro-life. Hearing the strong heartbeat of my unborn daughter 14 years ago at 13 weeks gestation had a profound effect on me and my beliefs. The life of every human being is precious. We must work to reduce abortions in New Jersey through laws such as parental notification, a 24-hour waiting period and a ban on partial-birth abortion. " (From his 2009 campaign website)

Rubio: "I am pro-life. As a state legislator, I supported various pieces of pro-life legislation that, among other things, would require doctors to perform ultrasounds before performing abortions and another bill that would ban the use of taxpayer dollars to fund stem cell research." (from his 2010 campaign website) Rubio also opposed Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court because of her belief in " the so-called constitutional right to privacy that resulted in the Roe v. Wade decision." (also from his campaign website) Voted again federal funding for abortions and supports giving legal rights to unborn children.

Stem Cell research:
Rubio: Has voted to prohibit human embryonic stem cell research.
Christie: No public position that I can find.

Gay Marriage:
Rubio: Supports a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex marriage.
Christie: Believes in civil unions but says marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.

Social Security, Medicare, the Budget:
Rubio: voted "yes" on the Ryan budget which included what some would call some fairly radical views on social security, medicare, and taxes.
Christie: Raise the retirement age. We must have lower taxes across the board, thinks 10% cut in taxes would be good. Believes much of our current budget problems are do to too many entitlements.

Immigration:
Rubio: English is the official language of the United States. Wants to grant legal status to immigrant children, though not full citizenship. Opposes any form of amnesty for current illegals in the country. Does believe in some form of the Dream Act to give visas to immigrants who get a college degree or serve in the military.
Christie: No positions I can find

-Jason "Christie has the advantage of not having to stake out positions on many of the major issues of the day but both of them would hardly seem to be super-moderates" Evans

I would agree that neither Rubio or Christie can really be characterized as moderates. They are both definitely conservative in terms of general political orientation. But both could arguably be characterized as moderates in terms of temperment, and pragmatic and results oriented in terms of governing style. They are not certainly not ideologues in the way they govern. The same could be said for Mitch Daniels and Bobby Jindal, among others. But there is a profound disconnect between the generally effective approaches these GOP governors have taken at the state level, especially with regard to fiscal soundness, and the far more ideological and uncompromising way in which the party positions itself nationally. As I said in a previous post, I think this is at least as big an issue for the GOP as the gender and demographic gaps they face.

[cspan37421]

Personally (as a '10 grad), I would wait to see what kind of financial aid package Duke offers before becoming concerned about post-graduation finances. I didn't think I would be able to attend Duke at all, but they're quite generous in offering need-based aid.

Yes, it is worth noting: about half the kids pay full price.

All schools now have (b/c it's mandated) a financial aid calculator on their website which estimates aid. It's not official but it'll give you a ballpark estimate of what to expect.

I would be very cautious about discouraging certain majors, though, as it could make the kid want it more. IMO one of the best arguments for double majoring is that it allows you to pursue a passion without regard to whether it will prove remunerative. [if it is, so much the better for you!] Do one major for job prospects (or prep for grad school or professional school), and if you're not lucky that your occupation or profession is what you're academically passionate about, you can pursue something else as well, at least during your time in school.

I was discouraged from one field and for good reason. I worked it in, but not as my first major. Looking back, I am glad it wasn't my first and especially that it wasn't my only major.

[cspan37421]

I agree with this. Prior to the first debate, the Obama campaign was able to paint Romney as a right-wing radical. The surge for Romney came because the electorate found out that he was more moderate than they expected. However, Romney was nervous about the etch-a-sketch criticism, and found himself trying to promote two viewpoints. Even at the end, it wasn't clear which Romney would govern. This cost him. Given the state of the economy, etc., had he been able to play the centrist from the start, he would have walked away with the election. Yes, the demographic shifts are huge, but a moderate Republican can draw enough support from minority groups to win.

I suspect many Democrats would have been OK with the Romney that governed Massachusetts, if they could have only been sure that's what they'd get, and that he wouldn't owe all kinds of more extreme characters all kinds of favors.

It was interesting to me to note that Romney did significantly better in Michigan than Massachusetts.

Also, Gary Johnson didn't reach 4% in New Mexico, perhaps attesting to the tendency of our system to whittle down the choice to a 2-person horse race.

[wilson]

I think if their response now is "we need to go even more conservative," they are in big trouble. But, I think people like Christie and Rubio...are moderates at heart, and that they would embrace a social platform that was much more to the middle. Guess we'll see.

This, to me, is the crux of the question as to where the GOP goes next. I agree with much of the analysis in this thread of what's ailing the GOP, your analysis included.
What I can't understand is why anyone in the GOP would think that the answer is go tack further to the right. How many voters do they think took a look at the presidential candidates and said, "That Romney, he's not conservative enough. So I'm going to vote Obama instead."? That just makes not one shred of sense to me.

[Dukeface88]

Not at all a pejorative (that can be a noun too, right?). Simply a political reality. In a country where 80 or 90% of a population is ethnically homogenous, political segmentation is based on things like education, religion, socioeconomic status, labor affiliations, etc. etc.

In a country that is 60% or 70% ethnically homogenous, and WASP culture is no longer, as you write, the "default American", the various segments that Americans self-select into become increasingly important. It really doesn't matter whether I think that change is good or bad; it's real, and if you ignore it, you're left on the sidelines.

What the DNC did with julian Castro as their keynote speaker was exactly what I'm talking about in terms of embracing identity politics, and I think it was 100% the right move. Which is why I'm basically suggesting the same thing with Marco Rubio.

What I'm saying is that nothing about the Democratic party should inherently make them the default party for Asian and Latino voters. I can think of at least a dozen reasons why they are a BAD fit. But as long as the Dems keep putting out young diverse stars like Booker, Obama, Castro as the face of their party, even if people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Tim Kaine are pulling the strings, and the faces of the Republican party are Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, McCain, Bush, Rove, Santorum, Cheney <I could go on and on and on>, they'll keep having problems with non-white voters, who are much more likely to identify with the former group's age, skin color, interests, and background than the latter. Look at all the smart things Obama has done to show how current he is. Kiss his wife on a camera at wizards games, the carrier classic, play pickup basketball... None of these have anything whatsoever to do with policy, but they are effective. George Bush and Dick Cheney like to hunt, fish, and play golf. Do you know who likes those things? Old white guys (Tiger Woods not withstanding).

One thing the Republicans got right about Ryan was his age and look (ie. he's fit). But as I wrote earlier, I think you're going to see a lot less of the group I listed above next time around (we already are), and more of jindal, Rubio, Christie, etc.

In terms of policies, I think Mitt Romney would have done exactly what you're describing, but everything I've written the past couple of posts kept him from winning a very close election.

See, I think Democrats would disagree that they're recieving minority votes because of the age, skin color, interests and background of their politicians. Rather, I think they're recieving votes because they generally support policies that minority voters favor. Exit polls show Hispanics are strongy pro-choice, while other polls show that more Hispanics support same-sex marriage than the general population, as well as being overwhelmingly liberal on the economy. And all of that is before getting into immigration.

[CDu]

I was talking to a friend of mine (Duke grad) the other day and we started to realize that a very strong case could be made that the United States no longer has a conservative party or a liberal party, economically speaking. Instead we have a religious party and a secular party.

Such an idea would help explain some politically counter-intuitive situations that have come up lately, such as Obama pushing for the individual mandate in healthcare (which was, until two years ago, a conservative concept). It also makes sense given that there seems to be no space in the current political landscape for people to seriously discuss economic policies.

Yeah, you can thank the Bush campaigns (and the referendum on Clinton's sexual habits) for the change in the political profile of the GOP. Bush pushed hard to convince the evangelical Christians to come out in force against the Democrats and their heathen ways, and it worked for him. The GOP sort of followed suit. Bush himself turned out to be a bit un-Republican (in the classical sense) in that he made some substantial expansions of the Federal government (Medicare Part D, Homeland Security), and the party transformed into a religious (and specifically Christian) party that believed in tax breaks for the wealthy, and less about historically Republican ideals. The Democrats countered with Obama, who got young people and minorities to vote, which countered the evangelicals.

I think the country has been more socially progressive than the electorate would suggest, but many of the more socially progressive folks (generally the younger, less wealthy) didn't typically show up for the election. Starting in 2008, Obama and the Democrats did a good job of getting those people to vote.

I tend to agree that, if the Republicans can shift away from the "religious" party back to more of a fiscal/governmental policy party, they'd stand a good chance of rebounding. I don't know that it would have won Romney this election (I think he hurt himself too much in midwest states like Ohio with his stance on the bailout), but it would have at least given him a chance.

[cspan37421]

However the conflating of "secular" and "anti-religion" makes me bristle a bit. They are completely different things. A religious person can still insist that government should be secular. Luke 20:25

Me too; there's a difference. Secular government can serve as a solid, neutral guarantor of religious liberty. Still can't hurt others, though, but if you want to believe there's a teapot in orbit around Mars, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, go for it.

[gus]

I understand that our system may be designed so that there's a natural tendency to gravitate toward a 2-party system. But I suspect it's being helped along to achieve that end as well.

It's not that the system is designed for two parties, per se (I recall there were a lot of three party elections in the early 19th century). It's more that in a winner takes all style election, there is a natural tendency to gravitate towards two parties. This is easy to see in game theory. I think someone had created a youtube video showing the effect.

[CDu]

See, I think Democrats would disagree that they're recieving minority votes because of the age, skin color, interests and background of their politicians. Rather, I think they're recieving votes because they generally support policies that minority voters favor. Exit polls show Hispanics are strongy pro-choice, while other polls show that more Hispanics support same-sex marriage than the general population, as well as being overwhelmingly liberal on the economy. And all of that is before getting into immigration.

I think both angles are correct, actually. I think that minorities and young people tend to agree with more Democrat-ish social policies. But I think that much of Obama's (and the party's) success in 2008 and 2012 is related to his race and age. He did a better job than, say, John Kerry at getting those social progressives to vote, despite supporting pretty similar policies.

[wilson]

I think both angles are correct, actually. I think that minorities and young people tend to agree with more Democrat-ish social policies. But I think that much of Obama's (and the party's) success in 2008 and 2012 is related to his race and age. He did a better job than, say, John Kerry at getting those social progressives to vote, despite supporting pretty similar policies.

The counterpoint to this, though, is that Obama's greater success relative to Kerry was due not to his age or race, but to the superior "ground game" organized by both Obama campaigns. His has been widely described in terms like "the largest grassroots organization in the history of American politics." I'm not saying that race and age had nothing to do with his victories, but I would submit that those traits are not the whole picture (or even most of the picture).

[blazindw]

Incredible. Hope he refrains from taking a victory lap and just reminds people that he has a book for sale.

He did that last night: https://twitter.com/fivethirtyeight/...45721323642880

This is probably a good time to link to my book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Signal-Noi.../dp/159420411X

It was simply remarkable that he was so on point. I was pretty close, thinking 3 weeks ago that VA would creep over for Romney but that Obama would win the rest and Florida for 319. I didn't think that I would be selling the President's electoral vote total short, though!

[davekay1971]

From the point of view of a fiscal conservative (and social mixed bag), where the Repubs need to go:

First, this is clearly a referendum that the Repubs are in trouble if they stay the course. You have a president with a lousy economy, a major policy achievement in Obamacare that is unpopular, and a mediocre-to-good foreign policy record...the Repubs nominate a moderate, professional candidate, and they lose. So, they now go one of 3 ways: either go with a conservative, go with another moderate but no platform changes hoping the next guy will have better luck, or change the platform.

I'd suggest option 3...and do it with an eye on demographics and polls.

So, point 1: where are Repubs good? Foreign policy and fiscal policy. Traditionally they've done we'll ther in public opinion and they appear to still do well there. The American people like a strong military and a reasonable check on size of government.

Where are they losing?

1) women. They went strong for Obama again. Why? Issue number one was abortion. Republicans, even those that believe in life-at-conception, need to realize that life-at-conception is an impossible sell nationally. It sucks to give when you believe innocent humans are being killed, but there's the reality of what you can and can't do. Life-at-conception laws will not be accepted nationally, and candidates who endorse them will lose moderate and female votes. Compromise. Push laws to outlaw abortion after the first trimester. That gives 14 weeks for women to choose, whether they don't want to keep the pregnancy due to rape, incest, health, financial reasons, etc. It gives time for genetic testing if there is a concern. It solves lots of issues that are killing Repubs...and it's a heck of a lot easier to argue that a 14 week old fetus with brain, heart, hands, feet, human DNA, response to stimuli, a face, etc, is a human with a right to life than it is to argue that a cell or group of cells is a human with a right to life. That's an argument Repubs can win on a national level, and at least make a step forward on this issue...and not kill themselves on every other issue.

2) Gay marriage: the national view on this is decidedly moving pro-gay marriage, quickly. Is this the hill you want to die on, Repubs? As long as the government isn't forcing churches to perform gay marriages (ie: making the Catholic Church do them against the Church's will)...is it really a national issue worth losing elections over?

3) immigration reform: I'm all for enforcing laws, and if you're here against the law, you should be punished. Ok, but a growing portion of the voting population disagrees and considers this a make or break issue. Time to compromise. If you're working, serving the country, not breaking other laws...let's concede a path to citizenship. And let's simultaneously improve border security and get the people out who are breaking laws. The Repubs could actually compete for the Latino vote if they compromise some.

Those are 3 areas where the Repubs lost big last night, and they'll lose bigger on the same areas in 2016 if they don't change the platform.

Just my humble opinion, as a guy who wants to see a fiscally Conservative party back in the White House

[pfrduke]

This, to me, is the crux of the question as to where the GOP goes next. I agree with much of the analysis in this thread of what's ailing the GOP, your analysis included.
What I can't understand is why anyone in the GOP would think that the answer is go tack further to the right. How many voters do they think took a look at the presidential candidates and said, "That Romney, he's not conservative enough. So I'm going to vote Obama instead."? That just makes not one shred of sense to me.

The people who believe this (I think) have to believe it's a turnout issue - that there is a stable of conservative voters out there who simply don't care to choose between a liberal and a moderate republican and therefore don't vote. There are, very roughly, about 40 million registered voters who did not vote and another 50+ million who are eligible but are not even registered to vote. The "tack to the right" crowd must believe many of those people (or at least enough to turn an election) are conservative voters who will not be mobilized to vote unless there is a sufficiently conservative candidate.

Whether this is true is an open question.

[Mike Corey]

A quick aside to discuss the polling. Fordham studied the accuracy of the polls. The results:

1. PPP (D)
1. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP
3. YouGov
4. Ipsos/Reuters
5. Purple Strategies
6. NBC/WSJ
6. CBS/NYT
6. YouGov/Economist
9. UPI/CVOTER
10. IBD/TIPP
11. Angus-Reid
12. ABC/WP
13. Pew Research
13. Hartford Courant/UConn
15. CNN/ORC
15. Monmouth/SurveyUSA
15. Politico/GWU/Battleground
15. FOX News
15. Washington Times/JZ Analytics
15. Newsmax/JZ Analytics
15. American Research Group
15. Gravis Marketing
23. Democracy Corps (D)
24. Rasmussen
24. Gallup26. NPR
27. National Journal
28. AP/GfK

[OldPhiKap]

Everyone keeps on pointing to some GOP politicians who are "moderate" who might be candidates in 2016. Well, just so we are all clear, here is how Chris Christie and Marco Rubio stand on the issues.

John Huntsman, come on down. Bring some like-minded friends.

[Reisen]

I think both angles are correct, actually. I think that minorities and young people tend to agree with more Democrat-ish social policies. But I think that much of Obama's (and the party's) success in 2008 and 2012 is related to his race and age. He did a better job than, say, John Kerry at getting those social progressives to vote, despite supporting pretty similar policies.

I want to be clear. Race and age are important, but those are not the only things I'm talking about when it comes to "identity politics". A couple others:

- Family background. I actually think many people identified with Obama's lack of a two-parent household, especially given the fall in that metric in recent decades.

- Interests. I listed them, but basketball, beer, sports, the internet, etc. etc. I wonder sometimes how many Republican congressmen even know how to write an email.

- Wife and kids. Camelot. He's sort of the black jfk to many.

I could probably come up with a few others, but he's a great messenger, without even knowing the policy stuff. Make a Republican version of him, and he's win as well (but never get nominated!).

This is why the Republicans must change. The party is not doing a good job of reaching out and including people. I maintain there's plenty of common ground, they're just not selling it.

[OldPhiKap]

The people who believe this (I think) have to believe it's a turnout issue - that there is a stable of conservative voters out there who simply don't care to choose between a liberal and a moderate republican and therefore don't vote. There are, very roughly, about 40 million registered voters who did not vote and another 50+ million who are eligible but are not even registered to vote. The "tack to the right" crowd must believe many of those people (or at least enough to turn an election) are conservative voters who will not be mobilized to vote unless there is a sufficiently conservative candidate.

Whether this is true is an open question.

I think some also follow the argument that Newt made in the primary -- that the biggest concern of that wing was "Obamacare," and Mitt was a singularly poor choice to attack it for obvious reasons.

But on the list of things the Republicans might consider changing:

1. Stop being the party of anti-science. Evolution, global warming, stem cell research -- most folks are not starkly hostile to these concepts. See Bloomberg, Michael.

2. There is a difference between being seen as the party of fiscal conservativim, and being the party of the rich. Decreasing spending and holding the line on taxes is one thing. Saying you won't take $10 in revenue cuts for $1 of tax increases is bad politics. Arguing that the top few percent cannot or should not take on a little more of the burden is hard to sell to a two-income family struggling to afford college for their kids or to pay the mortgage on an upside-down note.

[Wander]

First, this is clearly a referendum that the Repubs are in trouble if they stay the course. You have a president with a lousy economy, a major policy achievement in Obamacare that is unpopular, and a mediocre-to-good foreign policy record...the Repubs nominate a moderate, professional candidate, and they lose. So, they now go one of 3 ways: either go with a conservative, go with another moderate but no platform changes hoping the next guy will have better luck, or change the platform.

Well, I agree with you that Romney is probably a moderate at heart, but he didn't campaign as one.

IMO the issue is more with the base of the party than its politicians. Just to shill for my guy one last time: you had a guy running in the Republican primary who had (a) the best economic record of any candidate, (b) the best foreign policy experience of any candidate, and (c) the statistically highest chance of defeating Obama, yet he couldn't even contend, let alone win the nomination, because he had the audacity to tell people that climate change and evolution were real (ok, that's a bit of an oversimplification, but still). THAT'S the attitude that should change. You already have good politicians, you already have guys who have great conservative economic credentials with moderate social policy... but whether it be from a lack of their own political courage or the fundamental nature of the primary process, they can't make it onto the national level unless they fundamentally change who they are during the campaign, because of a (perceived?) need to appeal to the base.

[Lid]

1) women. They went strong for Obama again. Why? Issue number one was abortion.

I'm curious about this statement. My impression is that abortion is important to a large segment of women, but that this characterization is an oversimplification.

My own opinion is that the gender gap comes from a number of areas (e.g. all of the rape pontification, some of which was abortion-related, but all of which highlighted the gap between stereotypical Republican legislators and actual women; also, as mentioned here several times, the tone-deaf binders and dinner-cooking comments). Narrowing it to abortion is missing a lot of the point. If you give women a list of "women's" issues and ask them to choose one, I would believe that abortion comes up first. However, acting on the results of a survey like that would mean that R's will continue to appear not to "get" women.