what makes people vote republican? (long)

[Letum]

On a very similar note to the OP is this TED talk.
It is not necessarily my view on the subject, but it is an interesting take.

Video Link

[PeriscopeDepth]

First off, I have to agree that there is a demeaning undertone to the article in that the author assumes peoples decision to vote a certain way foolish. People have their reasons to vote (hopefully), and will vote for the candidate/party who has appealed to them most based on that candidate’s/party’s policies and image put forth.

But anyways, my long winded (for me at least) response…

I was a Poli Sci major a few years ago in school, and to get out of writing a research paper I ended up working on a California State Assembly campaign for a Republican candidate in a VERY Republican district. This led to a summer job of registering Republican voters for the Governator’s campaign throughout Southern California. Besides illustrating how well run and executed Republican campaigns generally are, I came in contact with A LOT of Republican voters. I registered voters in both in poorer (though certainly no Southeast Los Angeles or anything like that), very wealthy, and most everything in between neighborhoods.

These voters tended to end up in two categories, ideological Republicans and economic Republicans. Of course there was cross over, but there were Republican voters who would clearly benefit more from Dem economic policy. I even heard a few campaign managers refer to lower income Republicans as “ideological supporters”. These people clearly respond to the Republican SOCIAL message, though. “Traditional values” are a huge concern to Republican voters who are primarily ideological in nature, something that has been exploited by both parties in Southern strategies (Clinton, Carter are examples of part of the Dem Southern Strategy). The Republicans just staked a lot more on it than the Dems. And let me be clear, there’s nothing wrong with supporting a candidate whose values are perceived to be in line with yours. And it worked quite well for the Republicans for a long while, when a large enough segment of America identified with the message. A huge chunk of this segment was the aging, tending towards conservative, baby boomer generation. Combined with a number of conservative rural Americans, the Republicans had a very reliable base that turned out to vote very consistently.

We may be in the beginning of a shift in American party politics because that Republican base is becoming outnumbered by the Democratic base. And that base is actually turning out to vote in higher numbers than the Republicans base for the first time in a long time. I don’t think the Republicans are going to be able to continue to do what they’ve done for the past 40+ years (in terms of campaign strategy) and continue to be as powerful a force as they have been.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us...l?ref=politics

PD

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

First off, I have to agree that there is a demeaning undertone to the article in that the author assumes peoples decision to vote a certain way foolish. People have their reasons to vote (hopefully), and will vote for the candidate/party who has appealed to them most based on that candidate’s/party’s policies and image put forth.

But anyways, my long winded (for me at least) response…

I was a Poli Sci major a few years ago in school, and to get out of writing a research paper I ended up working on a California State Assembly campaign for a Republican candidate in a VERY Republican district. This led to a summer job of registering Republican voters for the Governator’s campaign throughout Southern California. Besides illustrating how well run and executed Republican campaigns generally are, I came in contact with A LOT of Republican voters. I registered voters in both in poorer (though certainly no Southeast Los Angeles or anything like that), very wealthy, and most everything in between neighborhoods.

These voters tended to end up in two categories, ideological Republicans and economic Republicans. Of course there was cross over, but there were Republican voters who would clearly benefit more from Dem economic policy. I even heard a few campaign managers refer to lower income Republicans as “ideological supporters”. These people clearly respond to the Republican SOCIAL message, though. “Traditional values” are a huge concern to Republican voters who are primarily ideological in nature, something that has been exploited by both parties in Southern strategies (Clinton, Carter are examples of part of the Dem Southern Strategy). The Republicans just staked a lot more on it than the Dems. And let me be clear, there’s nothing wrong with supporting a candidate whose values are perceived to be in line with yours. And it worked quite well for the Republicans for a long while, when a large enough segment of America identified with the message. A huge chunk of this segment was the aging, tending towards conservative, baby boomer generation. Combined with a number of conservative rural Americans, the Republicans had a very reliable base that turned out to vote very consistently.

We may be in the beginning of a shift in American party politics because that Republican base is becoming outnumbered by the Democratic base. And that base is actually turning out to vote in higher numbers than the Republicans base for the first time in a long time. I don’t think the Republicans are going to be able to continue to do what they’ve done for the past 40+ years (in terms of campaign strategy) and continue to be as powerful a force as they have been.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us...l?ref=politics

PD

Thanks a lot for the effort, Periscope. It's appreciated and respectfully recieved. Adds some more and very interesting input.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

This statement in particular is hilariously fallacious. This is typical thinking from people who don't understand economic principles or the very concepts of liberty. Those who believe in economic freedom and the sanctity of private property rights usually vote Republican as they are the ones closest to upholding those ideals. Democrats tell you that they're doing you a favor by taking more money out of your wallet. Democrats are also the ones currently discussing seizing/confiscating personal pension accounts (private property) to roll into some blackhole government "annuity". Democrats are the party of the "entitlement junkies". The thing is, the working man who is self-sufficient, appreciates freedom and liberty, lives by a code of personal responsibility and holds others to the same standard of accountability, and is law abiding could never vote Democrat unless they really didn't understand the issues or are emotionally driven. The Democrat Party simply has no stake in these traditional American values. These are some of the values I believe that could be included with what Frame was talking about.

You beat me to it man. Enough said.

I will add one point - I do find it hilarious that democrats believe the above article. Shows their brain has not past about the 3 year old mark since they have no capability to analyze it for themselves.

-S

[Morts]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You beat me to it man. Enough said.

I will add one point - I do find it hilarious that democrats believe the above article. Shows their brain has not past about the 3 year old mark since they have no capability to analyze it for themselves.

-S

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[MothBalls]

It doesn't say anything about people like me who don't vote for a party.

When I vote I look at each candidate individually. I don't pay attention to what party they are in. I might vote for a (R)Congressman and a (D)Senator.

Same with anything else, each on it's own merit.

They should abolish the two part system. It sometimes appears to divide what is supposed to be a united country.

[August]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

It doesn't say anything about people like me who don't vote for a party.

When I vote I look at each candidate individually. I don't pay attention to what party they are in. I might vote for a (R)Congressman and a (D)Senator.

Same with anything else, each on it's own merit.

They should abolish the two part system. It sometimes appears to divide what is supposed to be a united country.

I agree. I think that political parties are obsolete in this world of instant mass communication.

Originally Posted by August

I agree. I think that political parties are obsolete in this world of instant mass communication.

care to elaborate on this?

[Letum]

Originally Posted by August

I agree. I think that political parties are obsolete in this world of instant mass communication.

Nothing annoys me more than the whipping system in British politics.
I hear it is even more potent over in the US, but I am no expert.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

care to elaborate on this?

Well I believe that belonging to a party isn't as important now that a candidate can communicate directly to the electorate.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

Well I believe that belonging to a party isn't as important now that a candidate can communicate directly to the electorate.

That would be nice, I agree, but it is hard to achieve that in a winner-takes-all system. There will always be voting blocks in any form of democracy even if parties are outlawed, and a party is basically just an organized voting block anyway.

It's a good idea, but I'm pessimistic.

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by August

Well I believe that belonging to a party isn't as important now that a candidate can communicate directly to the electorate.

If they would communicate in an honest manner that would be true. On the other hand, in the case of a candidate that has been in a political office before, we, as voters, should be able to see what they stand for by their voting records. Unfortunately, honest communication by a politician is rare and self-informed voters are, too.

[Hylander_1314]

The best way to keep balance, is to do what used to be done. After the election, who ever lost the presidential race, becomes the VP.