[quote=ctr70]I think people totally get the red/blue color coded maps of the U.S. wrong. They are too generalized. What these maps don’t show is there still are a lot of people in the Northeast, Pac NW and CA coast that vote Republican, but of course a minority of the population. A lot of the higher income people and business owners in these areas. There are a lot of people (working in knowledge based industries) who lean to the right on fiscal issues, taxation, pro-business, entitlements, unions. But then lean to the left on gun control, abortion, war, climate change, environment. Kind of “Bloomberg Republicans”.

I think a big problem with the Republican Party is a “branding” issue. B/c of the heavy association with the Republican Party and the bible belt social conservative issues. When many Republican moderates are more fiscal conservatives and not social conservatives. I think more Independents who were undecided would have voted for Romney if Repubs had better branding and didn’t associate so heavily with the social conservatives and the Rush Limbaugh crowd. People look at these color coded maps and think NOBODY in Coastal CA, Pac NW, Northeast voted Repub or are fiscal conservatives, which would be a wrong interpretation of the maps IMO. People look at the red/blue maps and make an association with the flyover states as representing 100% of the Repub party, and coasts 100% of Dem party, and associate the Repub party with those areas of the U.S. as being perceived as more backward. I think this is a shame, because the moderate side of the Repub party would appeal to more Americans living on the coasts if it was branded better. When they start taking a look at what’s left of their paychecks in the near future, they will be looking for a better answer.[/quote]

Good post. I agree about people seeing the maps and not seeing the real picture. I also agree about the branding issue to an extent, but I think it’s a bit more than just a branding issue. On the one hand, no thinking person wants to be branded a “dittohead.” So there is that problem. But the Republican platform is against gay marriage and does generally align with conservative stances on social issues, gun control, climate change, war, and the environment. So it’s not just branding that’s holding the republican party back, but also its platform.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again now (I frequently repeat myself after several drinks, anyway). We need a new party in this country. Liberal on social issues. Strongly for science (e.g. stem-cell research and climate change). Against massive government but for government and regulation where needed and sensible (not reflexively averse to any and all government regulation or assistance or involvement). A pragmatic, flexible approach to problems without a rigid ideology. A basic decency on humanitarian issues.

There are so many people who agree with most of those stances. The first party that jumps on that platform (or a new party that stands on it) would, it is my guess, dominate for decades to come.

I’d be very interested to hear if people think I’m out in left field on this one, or why people think such a party is not happening.