www.conservativereview.com COMMENTARY
If Donald Trump wins the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, recent history suggests he may need to realign the electorate in order to win the general election.
In part one we took a look at data that showed despite skepticism from the political class, Trump could absolutely win the nomination. Given his particular voter base, however, and the way he would likely manage a general election, the traditional coalition it takes for a Republican to win the White House may have to be reconfigured with Trump as standard-bearer.
The last major realignment we had in American politics was during the election of 1980, which saw the advent of the Moral Majority (or values voters) that gave Ronald Reagan a third leg to the conservative stool his ideological predecessor, Barry Goldwater, never had. This alliance of pro-life Catholics and evangelicals, forged in response to Roe v. Wade and the hedonism of the counter-culture, became the dominant force in the GOP’s grassroots, creating a new coalition that changed the election map. As a result, southern Democrats nowadays are a rare breed.
For example, prior to Roe the Democrats won the Catholic vote in six of the previous seven presidential elections; Catholics were one of the most loyal Democrat voting blocs post World War II. Since Roe, however, every Republican presidential election victory except one has one thing in common—the GOP won the Catholic vote. The lone exception was in 2000 when George W. Bush was elected president without winning the popular vote, which is a historical outlier.
Translation: If Republicans do not run a strong pro-life candidate for president, they don’t have enough else in common with Catholic voters to win the Catholic vote. And Trump is not a strong pro-life candidate. Just a few months ago Trump was named Planned Parenthood’s “favorite Republican.”
A candidate who mocks what spiritual conversion can do to renew someone’s life, as Trump just did during a campaign stop in Iowa last week, is going to have a hard time energizing evangelicals.
Evangelicals accounted for half of the total 2012 GOP primary vote, according to a study by CBS News, and remain the largest single constituency in the GOP base. Republican nominees depend on that base to be energized every bit as much as Democrats need minority voters to enthusiastically support their nominee. A candidate who mocks what spiritual conversion can do to renew someone’s life, as Trump just did during a campaign stop in Iowa last week, is going to have a hard time energizing evangelicals.
On the other hand, given the current makeup of Trump’s support base, there is evidence he would perform well with middle class voters in the general. And every time Republicans have won middle class voters since 1980, they’ve won the White House. According to polling analysis, the lower the income and the bluer your collar, the more likely you are to support Trump in this primary. These voters appreciate Trump’s chutzpah, and see him as a poison pill to a system they’ve all but given up on. Not to mention they are the people most likely to be negatively impacted by the financial and societal costs of illegal immigration.
Nevertheless, if Trump sees erosion in the GOP’s values voter base, he’s going to need to add other constituencies to his existing supporters in order to forge a winning coalition. Especially when you consider Trump’s willingness to alter his positions on the fly, because virtually every even moderately conservative position Trump is taking now is a contradiction of his previous progressive positions. Therefore, one could certainly come to the conclusion he is taking these positions now to cater to the primary electorate, and then will pivot away from several of them in the general when he believes he already has those voters locked up.
Finally, there is one “x-factor” here: Who would Trump select as a running mate?
steve deace
