• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Americans Becoming Vastly More Accepting of Homosexuality

A Business Insider story claims that, “Only one group of Americans has become less accepting of homosexuality in the past 2 years.” That’s not only untrue (several groups have had statistically insignificant drops) but misses the point.

On Monday, the Pew Research Center released the results of a new survey on how Americans view homosexuality.

One question asked respondents whether homosexuality should be accepted or discouraged by society. Pew broke down responses to this question by a number of demographic, political, and religious factors and compared results from this year’s survey to a similar survey from March 2013.

In almost every one of the groups Pew broke out, the percentage of respondents who said homosexuality should be accepted increased over the past two years. This was the case for men and women, each of the generational cohorts Pew looked at, and each of the four major religious groups in the breakout.

The only group that had a decrease in the percentage of respondents who believed society should accept homosexuality was conservative Republicans. Each of the other political subgroups, including moderate and liberal Republicans, saw an increase in that percentage between March 2013 and May 2015.

That self-identified conservative Republicans might be experiencing a backlash against the rapid changes in gay acceptance wouldn’t be surprising. But it’s not evident in the data nor true over a meaningful time period. Here’s the BI chart:

pew-research-homosexuality-accepted-large

So, by focusing on one question from a larger survey and isolating the two-year change, we single out conservative Republicans. But a two point change is well within sampling error for the poll—much less a small subsample. Further, even that group is up over the 2003 poll. And moderate/liberal Republicans are up 10 points since two years ago after having “dropped” three points over the previous nine year period.

Looking at the broader Pew poll, though, the results are almost universally positive on the issue.

A 57% majority of Americans now favor allowing same-sex marriage and 39% oppose. As recently as five years ago, more opposed (48%) same-sex marriage than supported it (42%).

Yet even as support for same-sex marriage has increased among nearly all segments in the public, some groups remain broadly opposed to gay marriage.(See detailed demographic breakdowns and long-term trends on same-sex marriage.)

The Pew Research Center survey, conducted May 12-18 among 2,002 adults, finds that partisans are as divided on this issue as ever: Today, 65% of Democrats and an identical percentage of independents favor gay marriage; only about one third (34%) of Republicans do so. Growing shares of all three groups support same-sex marriage, yet the differences between Democrats and Republicans are as wide today as they were a decade ago.

The trend has been positive and rapid over the course of the survey period. And the pushback isn’t limited to conservative Republicans; it includes groups you might not expect.

Agewise, support for gay marriage is growing rapidly for all groups—except the Boomers, who have “dropped” since the previous poll. Moreover, the subgroup of Boomers where support has dropped are those that lean Democrat–it’s actually increased among Republican Boomers! As with conservative Republicans, this is within sampling error.

Indeed, liberal Democrats are the only partisan group where support for same-sex marriage has decreased since the last survey. Conservative Republicans have sen an uptick–although they’re ever so slightly down from where they were four years ago.

In terms of religion, support is up everywhere but among Catholics and Black Protestants. It’s up considerably among White Evangelicals!

Given that the only drops in support for gays and gay marriage comes in tiny subgroups and that said drop is within the margin of error in each case, we should probably ignore said “drops.” The trend is in one direction and stark.

Related Posts:

  • None Found

About James Joyner
James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway, an associate professor of security studies at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. He earned a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter.

Comments

  1. Tony W says:

    Maybe some people are finally coming around, but it must be a scary world out there for Huckabee, Limbaugh and their ilk.

    That it still pays off to speak ill of gay marriage, for example, at Republican rallies tells me that we have a long way to go. Bigots should be ostracized – not elected.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Grumpy Realist says:

    Expect wails of disaster for civilization from the usual suspects…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Hal_10000 says:

    I wouldn’t nitpick too much. Over the long term, he trend of accepting gays and gay marriage is up in every segment of the electorate. And it will almost certainly continue to go up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. C. Clavin says:

    The trend is in one direction and stark.

    And yet every single passenger in the Republican Clown Car…and the Republican Justices on SCOTUS…are fighting it.
    Fwck…Scott Walker wants a Constitutional Amendment making unequal treatment equal. Three-Fifths Compromise anyone?
    How anyone can vote Republican…James…is beyond me.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. DrDaveT says:

    For me, the most significant changes are:

    1. In 1993, only 61% of respondents said they knew at least one homosexual. Today, 88%. Given the strong correlation between knowing gay people and being accepting of homosexuality, this is a big driver.

    2. The gap between “don’t think homosexuality should be condemned” and “favor allowing same-sex marriage” is vanishing. That one surprises me; I expected more of a rear-guard action along those lines.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. superdestroyer says:

    Once again, a data set that shows that the U.S. is headed to being a one party state. I suspect political scientist will be studying the same sex marriage issue and how it will eventually affect virtually every other issue of policy or governance in the U.S.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. rodney dill says:

    @DrDaveT: I think your number 1. reason is the main driver. As more are becoming open about their homosexuality, more people are finding they have an acquaintance, friend, or relative that is gay. For the same reason I think gay marriage will eventually be legal in all 50 states. (Not making any predictions on how long that will take, however)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. michael reynolds says:

    @superdestroyer:

    No, genius, the data set points to a growing consensus around one particular issue. The group of people opposed to gays has diminished and those left still in opposition are old and presumably dying.

    What a rational person might conclude from this is that the GOP will soon inevitably accept gay rights. Probably about two years after Hillary kicks the GOP’s butt this go-round. And yet, even after they accept gay rights, they will still be Republicans. Just like the 40% of Republicans who are already on board.

    See how that works? See how political parties evolve? See how they don’t have to be trapped forever but can change their minds – or at least change generationally – and still find a way to differentiate themselves from the other party?

    If people can change their minds on gays, guess what? They can also change their minds on race. Which is what we’ve all been trying to pound through that dense, OCD skull of yours since forever.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Surreal American says:

    @superdestroyer:

    You know, the one-party scenario can be averted the very second the GOP quits basing their campaigns on the demographics they pine for and starts campaigning based on the demographic trends that exist.

    Just sayin’

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Gustopher says:

    What this really shows is that the Gay Agenda is working. The bake sales, the recruitment drives, and the mandatory same-sex exploration required to get a four year college degree are all paying dividends.

    It helps that we’ve gotten funding from international aid organizations focused on reducing population growth — that let us create TV shows like “Will and Grace”, “Glee” and “The Rachel Maddow Show”. Big budget propaganda is expensive, but effective.

    We might be ready for phase 2 of the slippery slope.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. gVOR08 says:

    @superdestroyer: is like a fricking leaky faucet. Drip…drip…derp…derp…derp…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. gVOR08 says:

    @C. Clavin:

    How anyone can vote Republican…James…is beyond me.

    I glanced at the details in this survey. Of self identified Democrats, 278 IDed as “liberal” and 340 as “moderate/conservative”. For Republicans it was 363 “conservative” to 139 “moderate/liberal. I know people get confused by “liberal” and “conservative”, but still…70+% of Republicans claim to be conservative. Getting to be not much room for moderates in that bunch.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. superdestroyer says:

    @Surreal American:

    Every demographic trend is in the favor of the Democrats. As fewer people are married, are fewer children are born into a two-party family, and as a higher percentage of residents of the U.S. are eligible for government set asides and quotas, there is no future for a conservative party in the U.S.

    As Senator Sanders is demonstrating in the 2016 election, the future of politics is about entitlements, who pays for them, and who receives them. The future of politics is about expanding the size, scope, and power of the public sector while shrinking the power of the private sector. In such a situation ,no one will want to on the outside and seen as the bill payer for a much larger social network. That is why 95% of Ivy League students are progressives Democrats and why only an idiot would plan on having a future as a conservative politician.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. C. Clavin says:

    @gVOR08:
    70% of Republicans identify as Conservative…few are.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. James Pearce says:

    My take: None of this would have been possible without the GOP’s multi-decade effort to profit from bigoted religious voters.

    So thanks, Republicans. We couldn’t have done it without you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. superdestroyer says:

    @gVOR08: \

    When I see a demographic, political, or cultural trend that demonstrates that a conservative party can survive in the U.S. , I will point it out. But since it has been decades since any trend existed that showed that a conservative party can survive in the U.S., then there is only one other conclusion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Grewgills says:

    @superdestroyer:
    Doesn’t it get old beating the same dead horse for so long?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. gVOR08 says:

    @superdestroyer: The percentage growth in the politically active conservative billionaire demographic seems to be outpacing Hispanics.

    And of course you’re nearly the only one on these threads that thinks the GOPs must continue to be the old white people’s party. And I say that affectionately as an old white person. Male even.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Neil Hudelson says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Which is an entirely different argument than the one about two parties. Yup, conservatism is dying. It’s, by definition, always dying. It’s a political movement that seeks to preserve the past in an ever changing world.

    Parties on the other hand, don’t actually have to glue themselves to the liberal/conservative spectrum. Your definition of a “party” appears to be a “group of voters and leaders dedicated to gay-bashing and brown-hating.” However those who aren’t obsessed with race and teh gays can easily see how two parties will continue to thrive, as they have since about the time George Washington retired.

    In 10 years, we will have a Republican party dedicated to ensuring that gay business owners don’t have to pay taxes, gay couples can use tax payer money to send their kids to private schools, and gay cops can shoot gay minorities without recourse. And in 20 years, we may even have a Republican party against that last part. Will it look exactly like the Republican party you’ve come to love and support?

    Thankfully, no, but it will still look pretty darn close.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. James Pearce says:

    @superdestroyer:

    When I see a demographic, political, or cultural trend that demonstrates that a conservative party can survive in the U.S.

    Considering the number of conservatives in this country, I think the future of a conservative party is well- assured.

    Don’t count on that being true for the party that chooses crazy over conservative, though.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. superdestroyer says:

    @Grewgills:

    No one ever ask progressives if they ever get tired of the “Go Team Blue” if they get tired of beating that dead horse. I believe that they are correct, I just believe that the outcome will be different than what all of the upper middle class educate white progressive believe it will be.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. superdestroyer says:

    @James Pearce:

    How can a political party’s be assured when they have virtually no chance of winning the White House, that even when they control Congress they have no influence on policy or governance in the U.S., and when every demographic trend is against them.

    It is hard to think that there can be a future for conservative party when that party is nothing more than a speed bump for progressives. What should really be interesting in politics is what happens when more than 50% of the voters are automatic Democratic Party voters and no political view outside of what the elite progressives in the Democratic will be tolerated. Can a political party survive when 100% of Ivy Legue graduates vote for the other party?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. superdestroyer says:

    @michael reynolds:

    How does giving your opponents a massive political win help a political party to survivie. How does helping a demographic group that will never vote for one’s party and will always vote and donate to one’s opponent help a conservative party win.

    It makes more sense that in a few years that the 40% of Republicans who accept same sex marriage will just be voting in the Democratic primary so that they can have some influence on policy and governance rather than staying with the Republican Party and being see as the target of the blocks inside the Democratic Party.

    But like there is no real Republican Party in New York City, DC, Chicago, or San Francisco, it is more likely that all of those moderates will just become Democratic Party voters and learn who to separate their personal lives from the political views much like most white Democratic Party voters do today.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. gVOR08 says:

    @C. Clavin: I’m unsure whether you mean a) our current right wing GOPs aren’t really conservative by any historical standard, or b) that people who say they’re conservative often aren’t. I actually agree with both statements (with some qualifications).

    In any case, I don’t see a viable moderate wing for our estimable host to fit into.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Ron Beasley says:

    I qualify as a “boomer’ since I was born in 1946. Most of my friends are also “boomers”. We all have gay friends and support gay rights. Of course we all live on the left coast not in the fly over zone of the country and none of us ever attend church which may explain our attitudes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. michael reynolds says:

    @superdestroyer:

    OK. You need to calm down. Then you need to open your mind to the possibility that you are deeply mistaken. Things are not as you believe them to be.

    You seem to believe that the GOP is necessarily a fixed point in the space-time continuum. It is not. It is capable of change.

    Do you believe that the GOP is capable of change? If not, then you have a crippling psychological issue of some sort and deserve our pity. Even the Roman Catholic church evolves. Has evolved many, many times, as has the GOP.

    So, if you can get your head around the fact that parties change, then visualize a vast, shifting swarm of issues. Some of these are current issues, some are future issues not yet defined. The GOP has drawn a line around some of those existing issues. Yes? Right? They sort of throw a lariat around a number of issues.

    With me so far?

    Now. What is to stop the GOP from deciding to throw that lariat a bit differently, to snare a new set of issues that encompasses key elements of its current issues?

    See how that would work? The GOP would evolve. It would change. AS IT HAS SINCE FWCKING FOREVER. Sorry. I’m trying to be patient. But Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, how is this not obvious to you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. An Interested Party says:

    No one ever ask progressives if they ever get tired of the “Go Team Blue” if they get tired of beating that dead horse.

    That’s because they do not constantly and consistently harp on a single issue that has no chance of ever becoming a reality…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. James Pearce says:

    @superdestroyer:

    How can a political party’s be assured when they have virtually no chance of winning the White House, that even when they control Congress they have no influence on policy or governance in the U.S., and when every demographic trend is against them.

    First, every demographic trend is not against the GOP, but rather the GOP are against several demographics. This would not be a problem if the GOP had any interest in serving those demos rather than opposing them.

    (Example: Caitlyn Jenner revealed she’s a Republican voter. Mike Huckabee’s reaction was to make dumb locker room jokes. Lindsey Graham’s reaction was, “Well then vote for me!” Graham is obviously a much smarter man than Huckabee.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. @Tony W:

    it must be a scary world out there for Huckabee, Limbaugh and their ilk.

    Limbaugh doesn’t actually care. He only plays a conservative on TV.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. superdestroyer says:

    @michael reynolds:

    What is would take for the Republicans to survive?

    1. First, the number of swing voters would have to massively increase at a time when the number of swing voters is actually going down. As was recently noted, swing voters only affect elections in a few states and those are Midwest states with lower number of non-white voters. Given that automatically voting for Democrats is already part of black and Latino culture and will soon be part of Asian culture, the number of swing voters is going down. Thus, no conservative party.

    2. Second, the Democrats would have to screw up enough to aleinate some block inside the party. Given that no matter how badly Democrats do in places like DC, Baltimore, Detroit, St Louis, etc, they keep swinning, there is no reason to believe that the Democrats can screw up enough to alienate all of the non-white voting blocks. And as the percentage of the voters that is white continues to shrink, there is no reason to believe that a conservative party can survive or that there will be a push for a second political party to set up on the left of the Democrats.

    3. Third, leadership will have to come long in the Republican Party that is has a skill set that no one possess. The future leaders who would have to lead the Republicans to survival would have to be charismatic, articulate, have great leadership skills, have a clear vision, and be able to lead a large group of Republicans in making changes. Those future Republicans do not exist today and will not exist in the future. given that virtually all Ivy Leagues are progressive Democrats. Does anyone really believe that the Republicans can survive using the second string politicians, grifters, and opportunists that populate the party today. The only people interested in being Republicans are those without long term planning horizons and those who cannot count. Anyone who really wants to have a career in politics can easily be a Democrat and learn how to mouth what needs to be said to gain and keep power while personally living their lives very differently.

    The future of politics in the U.S. will be much like the urban areas that are the biggest supporters of same sex marriage and gay rights: a one party state, very limited diversity in political views, a huge gap between political leadership and the average voter, and no Republicans.

    In the long run, what is more likely, do moderate Republicans try to stem the tide of massive demographic and cultural changes in the U.S. or do they just change to being Democrats to retain influence on policy and governance?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. superdestroyer says:

    @James Pearce:

    Single mothers are never going to vote for the more conservative party. Individuals eligible for racial and ethnic quotas are never going to vote for the more conservative party. Any group that has a cultural of Stop Snitching is never going to vote for the more conservative party.

    The future of politics is that the establishment progressives hectoring everyone else into silence as shown by same sex marriage. How does any form of conservative party survive that?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. superdestroyer says:

    @An Interested Party:

    Are you really going to argue that “Democrats good, Republicans bad” is not the issue that the Go Team Blue crowd harps on all of the time? Go to any progressive website and count how many posts are about how stupid the Republicans are and then count the posts about policy proposals from Democrats.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. michael reynolds says:

    @superdestroyer:

    You have zero grasp of politics or human beings and are apparently incapable of projecting more than a year or two into the future.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. michael reynolds says:

    @James Pearce:

    When you cut through the b.s., the essence of superdestroyer’s view is that the GOP is the Whites Only party. He is incapable of imagining anything different. He’s of course equally incapable of imagining that black and brown people might have issues other than race to consider. In his mind all policy positions are a function of race.

    It’s fun because he basically endorses the liberal view of the GOP as a racist, sexist, homophobic party. And the beauty part is that if the rest of the GOP is as dumb as he is they’ll bring on exactly the apocalypse superdestroyer envisions.

    Fortunately nothing in history or in human nature really validates his view. Humans rule the planet because we adapt. Even Republicans are capable of adapting.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. James Pearce says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Single mothers are never going to vote for the more conservative party.

    That’s not true.

    Individuals eligible for racial and ethnic quotas are never going to vote for the more conservative party.

    Quotas? What quotas?

    Any group that has a cultural of Stop Snitching is never going to vote for the more conservative party.

    I don’t know, SD. Police have a “Stop Snitching” policy, only they call it the “Blue Wall of Silence.” Police strike me as rather conservative. Is this an actual argument or just more BS racism?

    (Get this: Gangbangers don’t vote.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  36. Tony W says:

    @James P:

    Your intention is to attack Christianity

    Christians, under the Catholic church and the Duggar-style “Quiver-full” evangelical church, are literally pedophilia enthusiasts. Their response is to double down on the nutty defense of these morons.

    Christians have a long way to go before they’ll earn the moral high ground. Until then I prefer to hang out with folks who are simply moral because it’s the right thing to do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. DrDaveT says:

    @michael reynolds:

    What is to stop the GOP from deciding to throw that lariat a bit differently, to snare a new set of issues that encompasses key elements of its current issues?

    But but but… then they’d be RINOs!!1! :-0

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:
    Dude. You are a liar. And you have been banned. Respect the property rights of the hosts and go away.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. James Pearce says:

    @michael reynolds:

    It’s fun because he basically endorses the liberal view of the GOP as a racist, sexist, homophobic party.

    Yeah, and –worse– he seems dedicated to making the GOP as racist, sexist and homophobic as possible. It’s rather sad.

    We need a vibrant and useful conservationism in this country. We don’t need a Party of Dumb.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  40. superdestroyer says:

    @michael reynolds:

    If one projects into the future, the number of automatic Democratic Party voters increases, the percentage of voters that are white goes down, and the percentage of the population that works at a for-profit business goes down.

    Now why does the U.S. even need a second party when politics will be about entitlements, how to pay for them, and who pays for them. If a city with the population can function with one relevant political party, and a state with a population of 38 million can function with one relevant political party, then why can’t a country of 320 million people operate with one relevant political party.

    Of course, what progressives fear most about the U.S. becoming a one party state is that they will have to accept responsibility for everything that they can currently blame on someone else.
    The future of affluent homosexuals looks great because they have a massive amount of political power and have the wealth to avoid any downsides. The issue is how it will be for the middle class and blue collar families.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  41. superdestroyer says:

    @James Pearce:

    OK, how does a conservative party appeal to single mothers? By increasing taxes to fund more wealth transference? By increasing entitlements? By creating more public sector jobs for them funded by tax dollars? There is no way that the more conservative party can ever outpander the Democrats for the votes of single mothers, blacks, Latinos.

    The more conservative party could conceivably appeal to Asians but since Asians can count, they know not to support the party that is on the wrong side of every demographic trend in the U.S.

    Many people claim that the U.S. needs a sane conservative party but when ask to define a sane conservative party, the answer is always some form of Democratic-lite party that would appeal to almost no one. Look at the Republicans in New England to find out what happens when a party gets to close to its opposition party.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. superdestroyer says:

    @DrDaveT:

    There is no way the Republicans can appeal to a group that is currently inside the Democratic Party without losing more votes than it gains. People forget that middle class whites are much more politically active than many blocks inside the Democratic party and will not sit still while being throw under the bus to help the likes of the Bush Clan of Koch Brothers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  43. michael reynolds says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Dude, you really should be looking for a therapist. You’re obsessed and unbalanced. It’s gotten to the point where I can’t really engage you because you’ve slipped across the line into mental illness.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. superdestroyer says:

    @michael reynolds:

    When did noticing demographic trends and voting patterns become mental imbalance. Once again, you are showing why the U.S. is going to be a one party state: people either agree with progressives or are be considered mentally ill. What progressives like you write gives a clear message to anyone who wants to have a career in politics: agree with us or be considered cray and not have a career.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  45. michael reynolds says:

    @superdestroyer:

    I have family members with OCD who’ve been helped amazingly by Prozac. I’m not trying to be clever or cruel, but you really should consider getting help. Your psychological issues are on display to such a degree that it becomes almost immoral to really engage you. You’re making people squirm. You’re making people want to avert their gaze. It’s not because of your version of truth, but because you are clearly, unmistakably in the grip of an obsession and it’s to the point where debating you is no different than talking to the crazy guys pushing shopping carts.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  46. James Pearce says:

    @superdestroyer:

    OK, how does a conservative party appeal to single mothers? By increasing taxes to fund more wealth transference? By increasing entitlements? By creating more public sector jobs for them funded by tax dollars?

    Well, for one, you can ask yourself a very simplified version of this question: “How can we appeal to single mothers?”

    The question you’re asking is much more complex: “How can we help single mothers without raising taxes, increasing entitlements, or spending any money?”

    A reasonable person might conclude that you’re more interested in low taxes than helping single mothers, and that if it came down to a choice between helping single mothers and raising taxes: sorry, Moms. You see, it’s not that they GOP can’t appeal to single moms. It’s just that they’ve chosen to care more about low taxes instead.

    It’s like asking, “How can I lose weight without surgery, drugs, or changing my diet?” Well…you probably can’t.

    If you have a list of things you won’t do –won’t raise taxes, won’t consider spending any more– that’s going to limit what you can do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  47. James Pearce says:

    Just saying…..me and the troll called “James P” are two different people.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  48. Slugger says:

    Once upon a time the Republican Party was Eisenhower, Dirksen, Taft, Hatfield and people like that. I could vote for people like that. I remember when George Romney returned from a visit to the war in Vietnam and said that the war was a mistake…not those exact words, but still, and by the way George released years of tax forms. In 1988, I heard on the radio that the senator from Indiana had been chosen as the vice presidential candidate; my first thought was that Richard Lugar was a bit too right for my taste, but he was certainly someone I could respect. I was astounded to find they had picked a brainless pretty boy instead. In 2000, the brainless frat boy became President.
    Bring the party back to Eisenhower, forget about bashing a small minority and my vote will be in play.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  49. superdestroyer says:

    @James Pearce:

    Thank you for proving my point. There is no way for the more conservative party can appeal to the groups into that vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party. If the Republicans try to pander to single mothers by offering to have Uncle Sam to replace Mr. Right, the Democrats can just outpander them. Moving to the left just makes the Democrats more powerful. Increasing spending help the Democrats. Increase the power and scope of the government always helps the Democrats.

    Trying to pander to unwed mothers, blacks, Latinos, or academics just means throwing middle class whites under the bus. The Republicans are stuck in a place where they are a minority party but anything they do to pander to the blocks inside the Democratic Party just loses more votes than it will ever gain.

    The more liberal, bigger spending party can always pander to groups that have opposing views on issues (think trade unions versus environmentalist) because the more liberal party can just pass out more money or create more entitlements or special benefits. Thus, the U.S. will soon be a one party state where politics is about spending, who receives, and who pays.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  50. James Pearce says:

    @superdestroyer:

    If the Republicans try to pander to single mothers by offering to have Uncle Sam to replace Mr. Right,

    “Mr. Right?” I think it’s safe to say that you have no idea what single mothers need if you think they need “Mr. Right..”

    Increase the power and scope of the government always helps the Democrats.

    Sure, dude. The DEA, DHS, TSA, ICE. All of them: helping Democrats.

    You’ll have to forgive me, man. I’m still a little miffed I got swept up in the “James P” purge. I don’t have the patience to engage with this kind of stuff.

    The GOP is pretty awful these days. They could be better. I have hope. You don’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  51. DrDaveT says:

    @superdestroyer:

    People forget that middle class whites are much more politically active than many blocks inside the Democratic party and will not sit still while being thrown under the bus

    See, the problem is that you are irrevocably convinced that middle class whites are greedy racist sociopaths who would be permanently alienated from the Republican Party if the Republican Party were to do the right thing.

    You don’t seem to get that this is not about rooting for a team — it’s about actual policies that affect actual people. Republicans were the anti-slavery party, the trust-busting party, the fiscal responsibility party. They could be those things again — at the cost of losing the votes of the racists and the plutocrats and the warmongers and Grover Norquist.

    You have a much lower opinion of middle class whites than I do — but if you’re right, those people deserve to be thrown under the bus.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  52. Lenoxus says:

    When I read this, my first thought for a comment was to bring up superdestroyer’s usual bit as a joke, because I thought this was obvious evidence that the Republican party will change. (A tenacious 50-50 split would be one thing, but this kind of fast solid change actually makes the GOP’s task much easier when you think about it — by 2016, the nominee can change his position mid-sentence and just manage to gain enough supporters to make up for those lost. Note: slight exaggeration.) I assumed superdestroyer would just lie low on this one or downplay it. I guess I really didn’t think it through.

    superdestroyer:

    Once again, you are showing why the U.S. is going to be a one party state: people either agree with progressives or are be considered mentally ill.

    This and other words of yours make me wonder: do you believe it is basically consensus among conservatives/non-progressives that the GOP is doomed? Because as you know it’s that specific claim (and your obsession with it) which sparks such argument against you, not conservatism in general. To you, are they essentially synonymous — cynical conservatives who see the end of their party on one side, and on the other, liberals who think the GOP will survive?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  53. superdestroyer says:

    @James Pearce:

    Increased government spending always helps Democrats. It increased the number of public sector employees, it increases the number of political appointees who want to increase their budgets, scope, and size. It increases the number of minority set-aside contractors who will always vote for Democrats and will donate to Democrats.

    The Bush II Administration were idiots when they thought they could increase government spending and have it help their friends and in the long run, they were wrong.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  54. superdestroyer says:

    @DrDaveT:

    If middle class whites are thrown under the bus by the Republican establishment to pander to blacks, Latinos, and recent immigrants, then the Republican Party will go out of business faster than changing demographics will eventual do.

    OF course, elite progressives would love for the Republicans to chase after minority voters while throwing middle class whites under the bus. It would send the message that middle class whites need to shut up and do what they told to do (even if it is bad for them and their families) so that the Democrats can reward the blocks inside the party.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  55. DrDaveT says:

    @superdestroyer:

    If middle class whites are thrown under the bus by the Republican establishment to pander to blacks, Latinos, and recent immigrants

    I cannot imagine what it is like to live inside your head, in a universe where all policy is merely pandering, all people (be they populace or politician) are only ever motivated by personal greed, and “politics” is a game played for its own sake, with fixed teams. Oh, and there’s a finite pool of “quality of life” to be shared, that can shrink but never grow.

    I can’t imagine it, and I don’t think I want to.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  56. James Joyner says:

    @James Pearce: Yeah, not sure what happened: I must have reversed the selection on a page when I was marking his posts as spam; several comments, not just yours, were in the spam folder.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  57. superdestroyer says:

    @DrDaveT:

    When progressives have gone in front of the Supreme Court to argue that separate and unequal (Bakke, Gratz, Grutter, Fisher), the argument is usually that whites did not make a sacrifice because of some past events that today’s current students were not a part. That is throwing middle class voters under the bus to blatantly pander on the basis of race and ethnicity. The idea that if the Republicans just support more programs like affirmative action or Eric Holder’s idea of school discipline on a racial quota system cite

    So the idea that establishment Republicans can throw middle class whites under the bus to pander to Latinos (an idea pushed by Jeb Bush and Rubio) and that the middle class whites will sit still and take it is laughable. That is why the changes that the establishment Republicans are so irrelevant. They appeal to a group that is never going to vote for the more conservative party while alienating people who currently vote for conservatives. No one has even come close to proposing policies that will appeal to a majority of the voters while not alienating conservative voters. That is why the U.S. will soon be a one party state where the social conservatives will probably drop out of politics and all of the current moderate Republicans willl be voting in the Democratic party primary. The moderates are going to have to learn to play the game they way that the elite white progressives do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  58. James Pearce says:

    @James Joyner: No worries on your part, James. I’m sympathetic to the technical challenges you’ve had ridding OTB of that dude. (“Nuke em from orbit; it’s the only way to be sure.”)

    My anger was directed solely at my namesake for being such an intractable nuisance. “This is why we can’t have nice things!”

    Thanks for restoring my comments. Much appreciated.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  59. JohnMcC says:

    @James Joyner: Thank you for taking care of our ‘social disease.’ Y’all do a good job walking that difficult line of ban or not-ban.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  60. Grewgills says:

    @superdestroyer:
    Perhaps because their overtures are a bit more diverse than your middle class christian whites as victims bit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  61. wr says:

    @superdestroyer: So here’s the thing: No one doubts you are sincere. People here may despise your beliefs, but no one thinks you don’t really hold them. You’re not a troll like Jenos or James P, saying whatever you think will annoy.

    But you have been posting what is essentially exactly the same message here literally for years. Five, ten, fifteen times a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. (Honestly, you should consider a vacation at some point…)

    And for all those thousands upon thousands of postings, how many people have you convinced? How many minds have you changed? In case you haven’t noticed, the number stands at zero.

    I’m sure you’ve heard that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result….

    But insanity aside, if you actually hope ever to change a sinlge mind, wouldn’t you consider posting a different message? Say something in a new way that might actually catch someone with his defenses down?

    Because saying the same thing in the same words does nothing but make you a joke. And a bore.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  62. superdestroyer says:

    @wr:

    It is not a matter of convincing. It is a matter of influencing the discussion. It is amazing how many times that the idea that I write about are repeated in comment threads that I have not made a post on. It also discussion on demographic trends, political trends, and the future have actually influence not only the commenters but the people who write at many different websites.

    If nothing else, I try to get people to stop talking and writing about poliics as if everyone involved is a middle class white family.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  63. wr says:

    @superdestroyer: “It is not a matter of convincing. It is a matter of influencing the discussion”

    Got to say, the only other people in the country who reach this level of self-delusion are all running for president in the Republican primary. You might consider tossing your hat in.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  64. superdestroyer says:

    @wr:

    The only people running for president as a Republcianare those individuals who cannot count.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0