What Motivates the Republican Base?
By Erick Posted in 2006 | Featured Stories — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Marc Ambinder found out with a leaked copy of a polling memo from GOP polling guru Fred Steeper to RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman.
In short, Mr. Steeper thinks the GOP is not, this year, going to be motivated by what the GOP will accomplish in the next two years. Rather, Mr. Steeper thinks the GOP's base will turn out in droves in November if Republican leaders talk plainly to them about how much worse the Democrats would be.
A majority of the base -- 56 percent -- reported "extremely strong feelings" about the Democrats' position on the war on terror and many did so independently of their support for President Bush. That suggests that Republicans could write a two-part message to their base, one that kicks the Democrats and the other that affirms the Republican dominance on the issue.
On taxes, about 70 percent of the base reports to be extremely motivated by the GOP's effort to make permanent the Bush tax cuts and the alleged Democratic effort to gut them.
Mr. Steeper also found that Republican leaders should talk to the base about how Democrat proposals would create "big government bureaucracy." If you ask me, however, Republican leaders should first figure out the counter accusation from the base about the medicare prescription drug benefit, the energy package, the failure to reform earmarks, and "No Child Left Behind."
I think, increasingly, the base is less and less persuaded by "the Democrats will enlarge government more than us." That may be true, but the Congressional Republicans have not done a good deal assuring the base that the GOP will shrink, smother, or otherwise stall government expansion.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Bob Ney deigns not to seek reelection — Comments (2) »
What Motivates the Republican Base? 45 Comments (0 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Seems like you nailed it in one. The key points that I read were that the "Base" was pretty happy with the social issues, but not so happy with other issues like spending, heath care and other middle class issues. Support for the war in Iraq is fading also it would seem.
Hard to get excited when the mantra coming from the Republican party seems to be:
"We Suck Less"
or
"You think we're bad, wait till you get a load of Democrats".
I shudder to think that a trip to the wilderness for two years is the price that it's going to take for the Republican Party to realize that Fiscal Conservatism, Strong Military and Strong Law and Order positions rank right up there with strong social values.
Leaves you to wonder how much damage can the Democratic Party, driven by it's far Left wing do in two years.
Not much damage if the GOP holds the Senate. If all they loose is the House for two years, the Dems can't do anything without Senate and White House approval, other than wreak havoc on the budget and conduct endless investigations. I’m a Republican but not one of the ever growing portion of the party living off GOP earmarks/spending, so I really don’t care if the earmarks are Democrat for two years. I don’t have a dog in that fight. As for House investigations, if the GOP is already conceding it will accomplish nothing other than “not be Democrats” over the next two years, why not let the Democrats drive themselves over the cliff with Rangel, Pelosi, Frank and crew conducting one loony investigation after another?
The real question is would it only be two years? If I could be certain two years in the woods for the House would rebuild this lost Party for 08 including a regaining of the House under leadership more conducive to Mike Pence, I’d take that deal in a second. I do believe there are times when you have to take one step backwards to take two steps forward. I’m just not sure we’ve reached that point, but if not we’re getting close, particularly if GOP Congressional leadership is making it clear they’ll have no conservative agenda to pass in the areas of tax cuts, federal spending, Social Security reform and military strength
Let's say that Republicans loose the House.
In response the same thing besetting the Democrats might grip the Republican Party.
Go Right
Go Center
Go Left
Chineese Curse "May you live in interesting times".
I disagree. If we lose the house and keep the senate we have a liberal house and a senate that is still not conservative. The senate is not very friendly to conservatism, and a dem house and a squishy senate would work well together against conservative causes.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
Streeper has pretty much hit me on the head. I'm a tad unique because I'm excited about voting FOR Jon Kyl and John Shadegg, but on a national basis I've pretty much given up on the Party.
I am convinced that the Republicans will continue to expand the reach of government, and not necessarily at a pace slower than the Dems. There is no part of domestic policy I can say I'm pleased with. That includes judges, since Specter just sent five more nominees under the bus. I have NEVER seen a leadership group so worthless, from the President to Frist & Hastert and to major Committee chairmen like Specter and Lewis. The only program they have is to buy off their constituents with new entitlements, expanding existing programs and various set-asides.
Were it not for the war, I would root for the Dems. I don't care if they impeach W, it won't get through the Senate and it will tie up the cursed Congress for at least six months, a good thing.
So, bottom line, I'm voting for my Senator and Rep and I'm hoping against the Dems because we simply cannot afford to surrender to Islamofacists.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I can't fault the GOP at all for their performance on judges. Sure, we've had to throw decent nominees under the bus, especially with the presence of the self-appointed rulers of the Senate (the G14), but Bush has a better record on SCOTUS appointments than any Republican president since the beginning of time. That will have a lasting impact and the GOP deserves credit for it.
The other thing on domestic policy is taxes... they've done extremely well there. It's easy to forget with how horribly they've done on other aspects of domestic policy, but this is one thing they got right in a very big way. We would've never seen 1/10th of the tax cuts out of the Democrats. And if the planets somehow did align so that the Democrats wanted to enact their puny tax cuts, they would've done it in the most backwards and destructive way possible.
With respect to judges, there are two issues: SCOTUS and appellate. We've done well on SCOTUS, no thanks to Bush (Myers). The record on appellate judges is pathetic. Counting the five the JC sent back to the WH last week, that makes ten (at least).
The problem is a complete lack of leadership (and cojonies) on the part of Bush and to a lesser degree, Frist. The idea that we've got nominees who've been in-process for up to five years is an outrage. Estrada should be writing opinions on the DC Circuit. The Gang of 14 should have understood clearly that if they want to play "bipartisanship" games with judges and if they don't vote for the nuclear option, they get no committee chairmanships and they get assigned to committees they have no interest in and no influence from.
Bush got the original tax package passed with a Democratic Senate and a smaller margin in the House. Now with control of both Houses he can't get the cuts extended, let alone made permanent.
I stand by my first comment, there is no leadership in the Republican Party in Washington DC. Bush is simply pathetic, he won't pick a fight he should win and he won't stand up to the old bulls in Congress. Frist & Hastert should have retired long ago and done something that they could be good at. Congressional leadership isn't it.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
The problem is a complete lack of leadership (and cojonies) on the part of Bush and to a lesser degree, Frist.
falls to Bush and Frist, and to a lesser degree to Specter. McCain just recognized the leadership void, saw an opportunity to get some self serving press and put G14 together.
The only way to have avoided the mess we are in now is for Bush to personally intercede and let Senators know that they will get a trip to the vet if they don't fall into line on certain issues. And Judges is certainly one of those issues.
Bottom line, Bush has been absent.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I actually think G14 facilitated things on the SCOTUS nominations. I'm not so sure about the appellate.
If you believe that there is no way the nuclear option could have passed and the G14 saved the nation, then yes.
If you believe that stupid filibuster should have and would have been nuked, then the G14 cost us a lot of judges.
The idea that G14 had ANY impact on SCOTUS is an urban legend probably started by McCain and Graham. After the Roberts hearing, the idea that he could have been filibustered is ridiculous. The Democrats would have dug themselves into a hole they would never get out of.
Alito might have been successfully filibustered but he did so well in the hearings (not to mention his wife...) that there is no way the nuclear option would not have passed if the D's were stupid enough to filibuster.
Overall, G14 is nothing more than salve for the egos of people who have no real power, no vision for the country and the need to be lionized by the main stream press. It is an affront to the very idea of a Constitutional Republic, but then I've come to expect that from people like McCain, Graham and the rest of the fools.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
The idea that G14 had ANY impact on SCOTUS is an urban legend probably started by McCain and Graham. After the Roberts hearing, the idea that he could have been filibustered is ridiculous. The Democrats would have dug themselves into a hole they would never get out of.
Alito might have been successfully filibustered but he did so well in the hearings (not to mention his wife...) that there is no way the nuclear option would not have passed if the D's were stupid enough to filibuster.
Overall, G14 is nothing more than salve for the egos of people who have no real power, no vision for the country and the need to be lionized by the main stream press. It is an affront to the very idea of a Constitutional Republic, but then I've come to expect that from people like McCain, Graham and the rest of the fools.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I do not question for one instant that the Democrats grossly and repeatedly abused the judicial filibuster. I was willing to see the nuclear option implemented but worried then, and still do, that the day will come when a President Hillary or somesuch will offer nominations to a Democratic Senate which we might want to defeat.
Sorry, but I disagree. Elections have consequences and if the Dem's win, they deserve to be able to appoint the judges they want, with very limited strictures. The Judiciary Committee should have 60 days from the day of the nomination to vote up or down and the nomination should go to Senate floor in no less than 90 days.
If we're concerned about the judiciary, we need to rely on electing competent people, not smoke and mirrors like filibusters, blue slips and nominees not being allow a vote.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
all that was done in the '94 election. I'm not voteing because I have great confidence in the GOP but I fear the Dems.
You have hit the nail on the head, there is no leadership right now. We need leader to take the bull by the horns and fight come hell or high water.
"Peace had a chance"
Is it me or does it seem that everyone is so pessimistic about november? This poll conducted seems to contradict that notion. The base will be motivated and the liberals will wake up on november scratching their head when the R's stay in power. Or maybe its me being overly optimistic?! I guess we'll see.
---
"The conqueror is always a lover of peace; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed."
- Karl von Clausewitz
If the Republicans hold on to power then why will they be motivated to change in any way? In fact, won't they think, "hey I can just insult and ignore my base all I want and they keep voting for me, let me vote for some more pork This is fun!"
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I think the Republicans WILL come out to vote this fall. I like the reasoning of Mr. Steeper. My husband and I have been talking about this recently. We might remind the voters that Democrats are all FOR terrorists rights at Guantanimo Bay etc. With the Dems in charge things could get alot worse. God only knows what sort of Democrat bills President Bush would sign rather than veto. That is a fear of mine. My husband thinks he would be vetoing bills left and right. One hopes we never have to find out.
Actually, a Democratic Congress, outside of the impeachment stuff going on, could be the best thing going for Bush.
Just think of the power of the VETO, aka: "There you go again".
mbecker, you caught my eye with this little gem:
The only program they have is to buy off their constituents with new entitlements, expanding existing programs and various set-asides.
Just how much more LIKE them can the GOP get? This, said by a Dem, would make sense, and sadly the GOP is doing just as you describe.
Man, I hate the offer on the table, best worded by Erick above:
"We Suck Less"
or
"You think we're bad, wait till you get a load of Democrats".
What a sad state of affairs indeed. Frankly, while I think plenty of trouble can get stirred up during that "two years in the wilderness", I can't help but wonder if a GOP loss and the self-destruct that would ensue of the Dems is just what the Conservative movement (who have, ourselves, been wandering in the wilderness for the last nearly 6 years) needs in order to get a REAL Conservative Presidential Candidate and the replacement Sens. and Congs. in '08...just sayin'
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
I have to admit, I'm not motivated at all and will probably not even bother. Karl Rove, you out there?
Uh huh; you're so unmotivated, you registered just to say how unmotivated you are.
Oh, you're mottivated alright: to discourage Republicans.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I did register just to make that comment. Check out my blog below and read a few lines, you will see that I am as conservative as they come (of course I haven't been posting much lately). I'm not a left winger registering just to throw out some troll meat. Im really fed up.
Falluja 1
Sadr still breathing
Border is a mess
Iraq is a mess
Iran talkin trash
Norks launching missles
lackluster responses to Dem attacks
spending
Harriet Myers
I guess I can go on.
You're right, i registered just to make one comment, because I am fed up with the GOP and Bush. I voted for a fighter and got a wimp.
Assuming the wind’s direction is opposite your direction, you can't sail AT the wind, but you can sail toward the wind, first one way, then the other--tacking. It takes a lot longer, but it's the only way to get where you want to be in sailing and in politics. Also in sailing and politics, "doing nothing" (dropping the sails and taking a nap) means you will absolutely be losing ground, whether you perceive it as such or not.
You can sleep, but the wind and the sea never sleep.
Saw the image at the top of the main page, and it kinda brought a smile to my face... granted, I'm probably the only person around here who is easily amused by the sight of the Fisk Tires poster in the background of it, but come on... that probably goes without saying, hehe.
But, on the topic, I am extremely upset with the Republican leadership on domestic issues. If I wanted a Nixonian approach to domestic issues, I would vote to have Nixon exhumed and serve as my representative. But I'm not. As it is, I'm still going to grudgingly support Republicans, but wouldn't hesitate to vote for a solid Libertarian if one came along. Where I am in Michigan, three of the five elected positions I'm concerned about voting for (State House and Senate, US House and Senate, and Governor), three are incumbents, and I'm only interested in supporting one (US Representative Peter Hoekstra, who will almost certainly win re-election; I'd be surprised if he gets less than 70% of the vote, actually)... but I will support Republicans in their efforts to do away with Granholm and Stabenow. As for my State House and Sentate candidates, though... a vote for "none of the above" does sound tempting, but the state rep is by no means in a safe spot, and I doubt his Democratic challenger will be anything less than a Socialist goon, so he may just get my vote as the lesser of the two evils.
I don't think Republicans are in as bad of shape as they're made out to be, but the leadership has to wake up lest they lose portions of the base to the Libertarians or another third party (I doubt these people will just stay home). This might sound like an empty threat, but we've seen the power of the Greens to disrupt Democrats, and we all saw how Perot gave us eight years of Slick Willie. It doesn't take a heck of a lot to swing some of these districts, and a few percentage points here and there could cause massive realignments one way or the other. 2006 will be the test to see if the GOP leadership knows what it's doing, and we'll see from there.
I don't think Republicans are in as bad of shape as they're made out to be, but the leadership has to wake up lest they lose portions of the base to the Libertarians or another third party (I doubt these people will just stay home)...It doesn't take a heck of a lot to swing some of these districts, and a few percentage points here and there could cause massive realignments one way or the other.
And that is exactly why I will never vote for another 3rd party candidate. I used to live in a district that was that close, and the Libertarian vote was more than enough to swing it to the liberal (no, really I'm not!) Democrat. I can't see throwing away my vote and voting for the Democrats again, which is what a vote for the Libertarians or anybody else really was.
Another hazard of a protest vote for 3rd party candidate is what happens when they actually win. Jesse Ventura is a prime example of this. He was not qualified for the job. The guy pretty much picked a bunch of people out of the phone book (Democrats) to run the state for him. The stuff he campaigned on was forgotten and left by the way side... he was saying those things when he didn't expect to win. Besides, soaking up the spotlight is practially a full time gig on its own.
The GOP is far from perfect, but it is the only choice we have.
Come on, what gets the base out??? On OUR side? Well, how about discussing fixing the country for starters. Fixing it, as in fixing abortion-on-demand, fixing public education (with real ideas, not rehashed socialism), like fixing the IRS with a bullet through it's bureaucratic head and getting instead a Fair Tax. Deal with disaster relief: the disaster of divorce on children, adults and our culture; the disaster of recreational sex yielding the hydra of aborted babies, discarded babies, fatherless babies, babies that become pathetic losers like their unmarried parents begetting more lost babies. And deal with all these issues, not mimicking the social engineering Marxist Democrats, but with VALUES based on the eternal truths of the Judeo-Christian realities of life. Those things would be a good start.
Invoke God, Jesus, Moses, King David, St. Paul, the Bible, and mean it. Back it up with laws that are founded on the principles of Christianity, which is the only sanity that exists in this psychotic world. The more Republicans look like Democrats socially, the less enthusiasm the True Republican Electors (the voters actually responsible for electing Republicans, i.e. evangelical Christians) will have to come out and make good things happen.
We hold Congress by being Conservatives with VALUES, not a bunch of bimbos in the mold of the Clintons, Kerry, Reid and Pelosi. The less we separate ourselves from the lunatic left, the more discouraged evangelicals will become.
Limbaugh has taught us that it is conservative VALUES that elect Republicans. Running to the middle of the road is a prescription for getting run-over. Speaking truth and holding high standards with credibility and character will trump Marxism, no matter how pretty its dressed-up, every time. The Dems are running wild in the opposite direction; why can't we for once be the adults and move toward the TRUTH? It is the path that will bring legions of evangelical Christians to the polls; it is the only path to victory.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. St. Paul
I don't need any motivation to vote in November. If I did, the idea of Nancy Pelosi being Speaker of the House in time of war would do the trick....and do it handily.
I must admit though, were it not for the distraction it would cause, watching the Democrats blow their brains out by impeaching George Bush for defending the United States of America would be fun to watch.
provided to just tell the GOP leaders what they wanted to hear.
"No worries, everyone stay calm, no need to change, use the same playbook."
Heck, I did not even see anything directly about immigration; what an incomplete poll.
If they would use at least some of the feedback to actually create a message/idea/solution that dealt with what is important to us, they would be up 10 points. Instead, the only thing we see that is conservative is their style of playing politics; "We only have to not lose."
In the meantime, I may or may not have the energy to make it to the polling station in November.
The question must have come up, so I can only assume the answer was such that they did not want to share it with the world.
Have you seen Mike Pence, "Mr Conservative", in his NRO article?
This program offers non-citizens opportunities to fill jobs that employers attest to not being able to fill with Americans at market wage.
There you have it. "Conservatives" now think that "market wages" should be set at whatever employers think is right. Lets all chip in and buy Pence an economics textbook.
not publish it.
"Market" wages with an infinite amount of labor would be pretty darn low.
I believe some employers prefer illegal labor not for the lower cost, but because of the control. Illegals pretty much have to do what the employer tells them to do. They can even be paid late, really late.
Lack of available labor at "market" rate is complete bs, and I say that as an employeer.
not publish it.
"Market" wages with an infinite amount of labor would be pretty darn low.
I believe some employers prefer illegal labor not for the lower cost, but because of the control. Illegals pretty much have to do what the employer tells them to do. They can even be paid late, really late.
Lack of available labor at "market" rate is complete bs, and I say that as an employeer.
was who decided to initiate a divisive immigration debate just before a mid-term election. Sen. Hutchison and Rep. Pence apparently haven't gotten the memo to shut up already.
There are many more reasons things are bad, and some beyond control, particularly fuel prices. But will someone just stop throwing gasoline on the fire, please?
That's a very inspirational message. Did the RNC come up with it after the Dems decided to go with "we can do better?" Print extra ballots. Now.
Speaking as a member of the base (midwestern Christian Anglo with both a pickup truck *and* a job), I hope the Republicans don't focus too much on demonizing the Democrats. Keep in mind the mental frame of reference that defines the wedge:
- Equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity
- Social justice versus criminal justice
- Government helps or government hurts
- Bill Clinton's lies versus W's "lies"
- God created, or Big Bang
People fall on one side or another of these variables, and where they fall helps determine their vote. Keep these things in mind when you're trying to woo them. Simply saying the other side is bad without hitting some or all of these topics may not aid a victory in November.
Any man who asks of freedom anything other than itself is born to be a slave. - AdT
but I am unlikely to vote for the dems, because I admit that while the GOP peeves me quite a bit, a dem controlled congress scares me more.
I did get a nice note from the GOP NH party tonight asking me what I will do to volunteer, and I am debating whether I will write them back to tell them why I don't intend to (if the GOP actually had a congressional candidate I could get behind, I would consider it, but I am not participating in a get out the vote effort for Charlie Bass).
The other guy sucks is not a good enough reason to motivate the base. It works well with a John Kerry or Geoff Fieger type leading the other party, but it takes more than that.
Reagan gave people a reason to vote FOR him. John Engler did the same in 1990. The Contract with America in 1994.
I always vote anyway (usually GOP), but the extra effort are for candidates I really support.
48 hours before the election showed Blanchard leading John Engler by 14 points.
Final:
Engler 51%
Blanchard 49%
I am as angry as can be with our majority in Congress and would be happy to see them voted out except for one thing: We are at war, and the Democrats' national security weakness is so great as to disqualify them from any role in governing. It's a shame -- the country needs a viable opposition party.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&...
Republicans' Best Hope? Stop Imitating Democrats
I've voted in every election (including primaries) since 1968, and I'll vote in the next one too. Whether to vote isn't even an issue for me, and I can't image it ever being one.
As noted by almost every previous commenter, the Dem's negative attributes are currently the best thing going for Republican prospects in November. Maybe a Lamont victory in CT will even give us a double helping of windfall advantage.
But, given the litany of challenges our nation faces, that is the thinest, palest, weakest of voter motivations.
True, it might be "enough" if our sole objective is retaining political power. But what good is political power if we don't use it affirmatively to really solve problems?
I'm a hopeless idealist, I guess.
Bellinghamster
I think the best bet for Republicans is to begin to lead by example and focus on the local politics of it all instead of intermingling with beltway bandits. This administration and congress continue to expand government and spending is out of control. Let's get back to basics here...limited government and less control.
We are always making fun of the Dems for not having any plans, just saying BushLied™ about 500 times a day.
But the GOP is going in a similar direction. Their plan is looking more and like "We'll do the same as the Democrats, just not quite as badly." What the heck kind of strategy is that? It amounts to: "Vote for the ones you hate rather than the ones you loathe."
As it stands about the only major difference between the GOP and the Dems (GOP Lite) is that Bush is for the most part making decent nominations, whereas the GOP Lite party would give us more gems like Ginsburg.