Saturday, November 15, 2008

Should Republicans give priority to born-agains or moderates? The short answer is the former. Here are the reasons.

Reason number one: Looking at NYT exit polls, we see that 57% of them voted for McCain, and the share voting for the Republican has ranged from 56 to 74 since 1980. A majority of them reliably support our side and thus should be rewarded with the party's loyalty. Democrats reliably get moderate majorities (with the exception of 1984) so we owe the middle nothing.

Reason number two: You might counter that since BAs are the base, they can therefore be taken for granted. The fact is that this group swings about as much as moderates. The range of the swing for born-agains since 1980 is 18 points; it's 22 points for moderates (and the low end of the swing for the latter was caused by the anomaly of Perot). Not only do BAs swing alot, they are notorious for staying home if they are unenthusiastic, and they can decide elections if they get fired up (as in 2004).

Reason number three: Once again, you might respond that, unlike moderates, they are a small group. In 2008, they are 38% of the electorate versus 44% for moderates. Yes, I know that some of the BAs are blacks, but so are some of the moderates. Add to this that BAs are growing. In 2004, white BAs were 23% of the electorate; now they are 26%.

Reason number four: The Republican track record is better when we put up non-moderates. Reagan garnered 59% of the vote in 1984. A weak candidate, Bush II was elected two times. Moderates are losers: Ford, Dole, McCain. Bush I was a one-termer who owes his victory to the non-moderate Reagan.


  1. A 2-pronged Federalist strategy would work for the born agains:

    1) Provide Federal assistance for voluntary interstate relocation of households.

    2) Provide greater legal autonomy to the States except in areas of law where there is clear ecological violation of one State by another State.

    It would also capture most of the higher quality (higher IQ and high integrity) libertarians.

  2. Anonymous3:04 PM

    Born Agains, simply because of the baby gap. Religious people get married sooner and usually have 2-3 kids vs. seculars who get married later and have 1-2 kids. Three generations of this......and guess who will be numerically dominant.

    We didn't have much secularism before the sixties in America, so the math hasn't had time to really work itself out yet, but I look for the "remaining" white voters in elections decades down the line to be more inclined toward conservatism on religious grounds as the seculars, with birthrates below 2.0, are more and more "failing to show up" for the future at all. Scream if it helps, but for libertarians, unless they can "convert" the religious, they need to find a way to make more babies. That isn't likely in this culture however. Immigration is bringing in more democrats simply stated. Our politics, unless Obama really screws up, is going to be inching leftward in my opinion unless the immigration is suspended for a while, which is highly unlikely.

    There is strength in numbers.

  3. Anon --

    This is something I've blogged about.

    The "Janissary Effect" of modern culture works wonders on turning young, conservative adults into screaming moonbats by virtue of how the modern mating game and culture plays out in urban job centers.

    Increasingly, employment is dominated by mega-urban job centers. Where anonymous urban living gives women endless choice. This dictates that all culture and power (flowing from their choices in the mating game) reflect their uber-liberal viewpoints. Hence, the eternal Moonbat generation scheme.

    Even the most conservative young man will mouth the platitudes and obey the PC strictures of PC Dogma to get a girlfriend, much less keep her, in the endless urban playground that is job centers in America. This is as true of Salt Lake City (reliably Democrat and uber-PC, run by an openly Gay Mayor) as it is NYC.

    The reality is -- control of culture and job centers turns young men and women into moonbats. Regardless of upbringing.

  4. You're right, Inductivist. Bush just screwed up. Playing to the base will help you if Obama doesn't do an amazing job.

  5. Anonymous7:32 PM

    Whiskey - why are young men in these cities voting straight left like the women are? Young men should be the most right-wing group in America (at least white men), because the young single female feminist agenda is directly opposed to their interests. I can understand faking it to get laid (I do this) but in the ballot box, time to get some stones.

  6. If these young men and women are true, and made a mistake, then yes. Let's not be like the left-wing illuminati and holding grudges on those who disagree with us.


Which oil for cooking is the healthiest? A meta-analysis of 54 trials

This new meta-analysis of 54 randomized studies looked to see which oils improve your cholesterol the best. The authors found that you ca...