Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 14 Nov 2015, 9:19 am

Geo and others on this board like to point out the demise of the "Rockefeller" or Moderate Republican and the rise of the Evangelical conservative Republican. I, on the other hand, have long maintained that this is an incorrect observation. I recently posted the 538 blog that pointed out the strength of the moderate Republicans in nominating a Presidential Candidate. Michael Smerconish had a gentleman named Henry Olsen from the Ethics and Public Policy Center on his radio show the other day. Mr. Olsen had written an article for EPPC back in February titled the Four Factions of the Republican Party. It can be found here http://eppc.org/publications/four-faces ... can-party/


His premise is that there are four factions of the Republican party that are based on ideology with class and religious influences. He names them as the Very Conservative Evangelical voter, Very Conservative Secular voter, Somewhat Conservative voter, and the Moderate/Liberal voter.

The largest group is the Somewhat Conservative voter which makes up 35-40% nationally.

The next largest group is the Moderate/Liberal Republican voter which makes up 25-30% nationally.

The third largest group is the Very Conservative Evangelicals which make up around 20% nationally.

Finally, the smallest group is the Very Conservative Secular voter at 5-10% of the GOP nationally.

The question then becomes, if the Evangelicals only make up 20% of the GOP why do they seem to have outsized influence. Mr. Olsen states that they have an outsized influence because they tend to be geographically concentrated. This means their candidates tend to get elected to Congressional offices because they are majority in their area. However, the Moderate and Somewhat Conservatives are spread out across a number of states. Therefore, they have more impact on the presidential contest.

It is a very good article. I highly recommend it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 15 Nov 2015, 8:58 am

I think it is a great article ... my only question is that it doesn't differentiate between more isolationist conservatives (Paul, Trump) and more interventionist conservatives (McCain, Graham, Christie). That seems to be a fault line for the definition of "conservative".
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3536
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 16 Nov 2015, 6:16 am

Archduke Russell John wrote:It is a very good article. I highly recommend it.


I read it, and I agree it was very good. Your earlier 538 article was even better I think, at least for me. I have recognized that Republicans don't get elected in northeast anymore, but as that earlier article pointed out, it doesn't mean that they don't exist and they have out-sized influence on the presidential nominee.

For someone like me who doesn't give too much thought about what's going on inside the Republican party, and instead pays more attention to elections, both were very enlightening.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Nov 2015, 10:47 am

geojanes wrote:
Archduke Russell John wrote:It is a very good article. I highly recommend it.


I read it, and I agree it was very good. Your earlier 538 article was even better I think, at least for me. I have recognized that Republicans don't get elected in northeast anymore, but as that earlier article pointed out, it doesn't mean that they don't exist and they have out-sized influence on the presidential nominee.

For someone like me who doesn't give too much thought about what's going on inside the Republican party, and instead pays more attention to elections, both were very enlightening.


Charlie Baker is wildly popular in MA. That's because he's a "Republican" who approves of abortion, homosexual marriage, and large government.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Nov 2015, 10:53 am

What makes him a Republican?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Nov 2015, 10:56 am

bbauska wrote:What makes him a Republican?


His party affiliation and business background.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 16 Nov 2015, 10:57 am

bbauska wrote:What makes him a Republican?


You should hear what the Democrats around here are saying ...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Nov 2015, 11:00 am

Ray Jay wrote:
bbauska wrote:What makes him a Republican?


You should hear what the Democrats around here are saying ...


I lived in South Weymouth for 3 years...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Nov 2015, 11:13 am

Ray Jay wrote:
bbauska wrote:What makes him a Republican?


You should hear what the Democrats around here are saying ...


What? That he's not corrupt enough?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 18 Nov 2015, 7:08 am

Ray Jay wrote:I think it is a great article ... my only question is that it doesn't differentiate between more isolationist conservatives (Paul, Trump) and more interventionist conservatives (McCain, Graham, Christie). That seems to be a fault line for the definition of "conservative".


The article was written back in February before most announcements. However, the author, Henry Olsen, went into more detail about where the Four Factors are concentrated, and where each of the candidates get the majority of their support on Michael Smerconish's XMSirius radio show on POTUS. Smerconish has posted the interview to his website. If you got to

https://soundcloud.com/smerconishshow

you can listen to the interview. It is about 15 minutes long but I think worth it.