There have been two story-lines in a lot of the recent talk about Virginia’s off-year elections next week. One is that the likely victory of Terry McAuliffe, which would represent the first time since 1973 that the candidate of the party controlling the White House has won a Virginia gubernatorial contest, reflects a reaction to the government shutdown that will still echo in November of next year. And the second is that “purple” Virginia is in general a harbinger for a Democratic House takeover in 2014.
TNR’s Nate Cohn published a column pushing back on both these story-lines, noting that Ken Cuccinelli was in trouble long before the government shutdown, and that the kind of GOP-controlled House seats Democrats would have to win to retake control of the chamber are much “redder” than Virginia and are occupied by well-funded incumbents.
But at Washington Monthly I offered some reasons Virginia might indeed be a harbinger, depending on how the November 5 balloting goes:

What I’ll be most interested when the votes are in next Tuesday are turnout patterns (normally an off-year election like Virginia’s is even more skewed towards pro-Republican older white voter than a midterm) and whether McAuliffe did unusually well in demographic groups that went Republican in 2009, 2010 and 2012. If the Republican hold on old white folks is fading, that’s good news for Democrats in 2014 even in districts labeled solidly Republican due to their partisan character in 2008 and 2012.
Truth is, after 2010 confirmed the heavy shift to the GOP of the groups most likely to turn out in mid-terms and off-year elections, I figured it would be a good long while before a Democrat would win the governorship in a “purple” state with off-year elections like Virginia. There’s got to be a non-trivial reason for McAuliffe’s apparently easy win, and while it may perhaps be personal to Cuccinelli, there’s no reason to conclude that without post-election evidence.

Two polls out just today–one from Quinnipiac and another from Rasmussen–show the Virginia race tightening (though a third, from Roanoke College, has McAuliffe up by double-digits). So we’ll just have to wait and see. But again: any Democratic statewide win in an off-year election is potentially significant.

The following is cross-posted from Democracy Corps:
When all the dust is settled in the off-year elections, we may decide it was seniors who gave the Democrats their chance for a comeback. We have flagged this growing trend before, but the pattern is now too consistent to ignore. When Republicans swept Democrats in the 2010 off-year elections, they won seniors by 21 points. Repeat, 21 points. They lost white seniors by 24 points. Just this past November, Republicans won seniors by 12 points in the vote for Congress.
We will be releasing on Wednesday our congressional battleground poll – in the 49 most competitive Republican districts and 24 most competitive Democratic seats. When we do, pay attention to the seniors. In the Republican battleground, the vote is tied among seniors and the Democratic candidate has gained 5 points among this group since June. In the Democratic battleground, Democratic incumbents lead by 14 points (51 percent to 37 percent) among seniors and by 9 points (48 percent to 39 percent) among white seniors.
This is not unique to the battleground. It reflects the results we have seen in all Democracy Corps’ national polls this year. In the latest national conducted with Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund, a Republican candidate for Congress leads by just 6 points (49 percent to 43 percent) among seniors, well below the GOP’s 21-point margin in the 2010 and 12-point margin in 2012 elections.
With seniors some of the most immediate beneficiaries of The Affordable Care Act, President Obama no longer on the ballot, and with Republicans seeking to make Medicare and Medicaid cuts, it is possible seniors are moving to a new place.
Read the post at Democracy Corps and see the frequency questionnaire here.

The following post by TDS founding editor Ruy Teixeira is cross-posted from Think Progress:
It’s widely acknowledged that the Democrats have a heavy lift going into the 2014 election, despite the continued decline in Republican Party favorability brought on by the shutdown, their extreme rhetoric and their single-minded devotion to undermining effective governance. However, regardless of the outcome in 2014, it seems likely that the GOP will be increasingly burdened by warfare between its totally intransigent Tea Party faction and “establishment”, business-oriented Republicans in and around Washington.
That’s a recipe for increased unpopularity going into the 2016 Presidential cycle. But a new poll suggests it might be more significant than that: an opportunity for the Democrats to make historic, devastating inroads into the Republican base.
How bad could 2016 be for Republicans? Pretty bad. Start with the likelihood that minorities, who voted 80 percent for Obama, will increase by 2 points to 30 percent of voters. Add to that the continued growth of heavily Democratic Millennial generation voters within the electorate, whose numbers will increase by about 4 million a year. By the 2016 election, Millennials should be about 36 percent of eligible voters and roughly a third of actual voters. That’s quite a tail wind for whomever the Democratic nominee may be.
But what about white voters? That’s where Obama was weakest, especially among white working class voters, whom he lost by 25 points. Won’t those kind of margins prevent a truly crushing defeat for the GOP in 2016?
Not necessarily.
The increasingly extreme and factionalized Republican party is suffering image erosion across the board, including among white voters. It’s also scaring white seniors and white working class voters, in particular, with its aggressive calls for cutting entitlements. This will likely lead a considerable number of white voters who backed Romney in 2012 to consider switching sides in 2016.
Will the Democrats be able to take advantage of this opening? We can’t say for sure, but consider that Hillary Clinton, the most likely nominee at this point, has a track record of appealing to white working class voters and in early polls has been cutting Obama’s deficit among whites nationally and in key states. That raises the possibility that Democrats could make progress in 2016 toward a decades-long aspiration: a Bobby Kennedy-style coalition that unites minorities, young people, and educated liberals with working class whites.
That progress would not have to be large-scale to create a lop-sided loss for the GOP. If Hillary Clinton simply matched Obama’s modest performance among working class whites (an 18 point deficit) that, combined with expected levels of demographic change, would be enough for her to exceed Obama’s overall victory margin in 2008. And if Clinton could match Obama’s 2008 performance among college-educated white women (a 5 point advantage), for whom her candidacy should have special appeal, she would triumph by 10 points, a huge gap in Presidential elections and the largest margin since Ronald Reagan’s re-election in 1984.
One reaction to this scenario might be: college-educated white women, sure, but how can a Democrat, even Hillary Clinton, reach a white working class split from the increasingly diverse Democratic party by ethnic and class divisions? As it turns out, most of the white working class is much more open-minded than many think.
Take a look at the results from a new survey by CAP and PolicyLink on Americans’ reactions to rising diversity. The poll found that, by and large, positive sentiments about opportunities from rising diversity tended to outweigh negative concerns about rising diversity — even among working class whites.
As the table below shows, Americans overall expressed majority agreement with six of eight statements about these opportunities, though there was considerable demographic variation in level of agreement. But despite this variation, it is nevertheless striking that white working class (non-college) respondents also agreed with every one of those six statements:

Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of the white working class agreed that “Americans will learn more from one another and be enriched by exposure to many different cultures.” The same number agreed that “Aabigger, more diverse workforce will lead to more economic growth.” 62 percent agreed that “diverse workplaces and schools will help make American businesses more innovative and competitive.” 58 percent agreed that “people will become more accepting of their differences and more willing to find common ground.” 57 percent agreed that “with more diverse people working and living together, discrimination will decrease.” Finally, 52 percent agreed that “the entry of new people into the American workforce will increase our tax base and help support our retiree population”.
This does not sound like a demographic whose future lies with the lily-white Tea Party. The point becomes especially clear when you look at younger whites; white working class Millennials are significantly more open to rising diversity than the white working class as a whole. For example, 75 percent of white working class Millennials think Americans will be enriched by exposure to many cultures and 73 percent believe a bigger, more diverse workforce will lead to more economic growth.
These data indicate that there is real potential for a breakthrough among the white working class in 2016. Whether Hillary Clinton (or any other Democrat) can realize that potential remains to be seen. But if they can do so, the GOP could suffer an historic defeat.

For an interesting take on an important socio-economic trend that seems to be accelerating,” read “ALICE Americans, slipping out of the middle class” by Andre Cherny, president and co-founder of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. Writing at WaPo Opinions, Cherny observes:

Americans have traditionally divided the country into three bands of income: rich, poor and a broad middle class in which, despite the protestations of statisticians, almost all Americans felt membership. But the distinct, cohesive middle class of the past is being cleaved in two. Last month the Census Bureau released new data pegging the median U.S. household income at $51,017. That income level is the new dividing line in American life and politics. Those roughly above that line constitute what is left of the traditional American middle class. Those living below that line, but above poverty, are the ALICE class.

Cherny explains that ALICE is an acronym for “Asset Limited, Income Constrained and Employed.” He adds that “ALICE Americans live on the jagged edge of the middle class. But by virtue of their economic situation and outlook on the future, they are becoming as distinct from the relatively more comfortable parts of the middle class as they are from those living in poverty.”
Some might prefer to call this group the “lower middle class.” Whatever you prefer to call it, you cn understand why this is a potentially volatile demographic in terms of voting. Here’s where the political volatility comes in:

Americans have traditionally divided the country into three bands of income: rich, poor and a broad middle class in which, despite the protestations of statisticians, almost all Americans felt membership. But the distinct, cohesive middle class of the past is being cleaved in two. Last month the Census Bureau released new data pegging the median U.S. household income at $51,017. That income level is the new dividing line in American life and politics. Those roughly above that line constitute what is left of the traditional American middle class. Those living below that line, but above poverty, are the ALICE class.
For most of the past 50 years, the income growth lines for the middle 20 percent of Americans and the 20 percent right below them tracked one another. A unified middle class rose and fell together. But increasingly over the past decade, these lines have diverged and a new income gap has grown. While the financial situation for both the bottom 20 percent and the middle of the middle class has stabilized over the past couple of years, the income of the 20 percent in between has continued to fall at such a rate that, as of 2012, their total income growth since 1967 is roughly 60 percent of those below or above them.
Working harder and yet caught between those in poverty who receive government support and a stable, if not thriving, middle class, the ALICE class’s resentments and disappointments continue to grow. The latest survey from the Conference Board shows consumer confidence has sharply risen over the past couple of years for those making more than $50,000. It is has even ticked up for those making less than $35,000. But it has tumbled for those making $35,000 to $50,000. During past periods of recovery, the lower and upper halves of the middle class shared the same level of economic optimism. At some points this year, ALICE Americans have shown 40 percent less confidence than Americans earning more than $50,000 — a historically large gap…Today, their median net worth is only two-thirds of what it was in 1989….the floor has dropped out from under the ALICE class.

Clearly, this is not a group that will have much tolerance for obstruction of needed economic reforms by a party which appears to be driven more by tax breaks for the wealthy than anything else. Hard to see them voting Republican in 2014. However, if they get no substantial relief by 2016, all bets about their political proclivities are off.
Cherny argues that “asset-building is the ladder of opportunity” is the policy principle Dems should address to secure the votes of this demographic. Further, he suggests “An ALICE agenda — including a refundable Saver’s Credit, matching grants for 529 accounts, reduced penalties for savings among those on food stamps and universal children’s savings accounts — could reasonably fit in the platform of either Democrats or Republicans.”
Cherny concludes, “They were trampled in the Bush years; they are still waiting for an upturn during the Obama years. They are up for grabs, looking for leaders who will rebuild what once was a single, surging American middle class.” For all of the talk about the “endangered middle class,” Dems would do well to pay particular attention to advancing reforms for this subgroup of potentially volatile voters.

It’s early yet. But WaPo’s Chris Cilliizza asks “If Hillary Rodham Clinton passes in 2016, which Democrats run?” He calls out the second tier, Biden, Cuomo, O’Malley, Warren and some others, but overlooks van Hollen, McCaskill, Durbin and some other short-listers.
Cillizza also flags Stuart Rotherberg’s Roll Call post, “The Most Important Election of 2014,” which references Mitch McConnell’s struggle to survive the GOP senate primary in KY. Democratic candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes has to be wondering if the McCaskill strategy of providing support for )’Connell’s primary opponent could prove worthwhile.
At the Center for American Progress web pages, Eric Alterman’s “Think Again: 10 Years of False Equivalence and Still Going Strong” observes “Over and over, no matter what the issue–no matter how outlandish, illogical, or simply untrue the conservative argument has been–journalists create a sense of false equivalence between positions that rest on data and logic and those that don’t. To quote Cenk Uygur, “If CNN did sports reporting, every game would be a tie.”
Steven Elbow reports at The Capital Times that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker appears vulnerable in 2014, according tot he latest poll by Wisconsin Public Radio and St. Norbert College. “Asked whether Walker deserved reelection were the gubernatorial election held today, 49 percent of respondents said no, while 46 percent said yes. Six percent were unsure.”
At Sabato’s Crystal Ball Larry J. Sabato and Geoffrey Skelley are calling it “A Democratic Tide in Virginia.” and the down-ballot fallout could be considerable.
Matt Pommer reports at GazetteXtra: “In a new book, Federal Judge Richard Posner said he made a mistake when he voted to uphold an Indiana law requiring a photo ID or other accepted means of identification in order to cast a ballot. Posner, who was appointed by President Reagan in 1981 and sits on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, is a widely respected jurist. His statements were stunning: Judges seldom admit they made a mistake.”
The bilious resignation of this charmer ought to make it a little harder for the more thoughtful conservatives in North Carolina to vote Republican, or admit they did.
At Salon.com, Jonathan Bernstein explains the “GOP’s Obamacare conspiracy: Sabotage from the inside.” And, boy, if Dems need a poster-boy for the GOP’s smug, mean-spirited vision of government, I nominate Rep. Joe Barton, depicted here in Evan Vucci’s caught-in-the-headlights AP photo.
In his post at The Nation, “Lou Reed’s Politics,” John Nichols, author of “The ‘S’ Word,” has a poignant epitaph for America’s great Punk rocker. Meanwhile, Dems can take heart from Reed’s lyric “You need a busload of faith to get by” in the video below, backed up by James Cotton and Buddy Guy.

At the Daily Beast Michael Tomasky calls out the myth that there is a civil war in the GOP between arch conservatives and moderates. As Tomasky explains:

The more I think about this Republican “civil war,” the less it looks like war to me. It often gives the appearance of being war because these Tea Party people march into the arena with a lot of fire, brimstone, and kindred pyrotechnics that suggest conflict. But what, really, in hard policy terms, are these two sides arguing about? Practically nothing. It’s a disagreement chiefly over tactics and intensity. That’s a crucial point, and so much of the media don’t understand it. But I’m here to tell you, whenever you read an article that makes a lot of hay about this “war” and then goes on to describe the Republican factions as “moderate” and “conservative,” turn the page or click away. You are either in the hands of an idiot or someone intentionally misleading you.
What’s going on presents many of the outward signs of political warfare. Insurgent radical extremists are challenging already very conservative incumbents whose thought and deed crimes are that they are conservative only 80- or 90-something percent of the time instead of 100…Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), American Conservative Union 2012 rating of 92, being challenged? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell? He got 100 percent in 2012!…

Tomasky adds that “a real war has two sides who believe different things and are willing to fight to the death for them. In this war, that description applies only to one side.” Further,

This…skirmish, let’s call it, is between radicals and conservatives. (It certainly doesn’t involve moderates; there are roughly four moderate Republicans in Congress, depending on how you count, out of 278.) The conservatives, the more traditional conservatives such as John McCain, Orrin Hatch, and many others in the Senate, and House Speaker John Boehner, could be a force if they wanted to. But by and large, they’ve refused to be.

Tomasky explains further that ” the conservatives and the radicals only really split on two occasions.”:

One was the fiscal cliff deal as 2013 started. In the House, 85 Republicans backed that deal and 151 voted against it. In the Senate, the vote was 89-8; 40 Republicans backed and five opposed. (Three Democrats opposed it because the tax-increase threshold went too high, from the expected $250,000 per household to $400,000.) The second was the vote we just had to reopen the government and raise the debt limit. That, of course, passed the House by a comfortable margin, with the support of 87 Republicans, while 144 opposed. The vote in the Senate was 81-18, with 27 Republicans voting aye and 18 nay.
That’s it. Interestingly, those two votes show us a radical caucus in the Senate that grew in 10 months from five to 18, while in the House, the radicals have outnumbered the conservatives in a remarkably consistent way. But those are the only diversions from party unity. On all other major matters, matters of policy–Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, cap and trade in the House–there is no disagreement. Everyone, or nearly everyone, votes no. The only really important votes on which these two sides disagree are the votes that threaten fiscal calamity. So that’s all the conservatives stand for. Elect me, and at five minutes ’til midnight, I’ll stand courageously against global economic cataclysm!

Noting that “An October 7 Washington Post-ABC poll found that just 52 percent of Republicans approved of how Republicans were handling the budget negotiations,” Tomasky explains:

… they might as well be zero, for they effectively have no representation. The regular conservatives–most conspicuously the craven Boehner, but all the others, too–did nothing to represent these people until the last possible second, and until the radicals demonstrated conclusively that they couldn’t pull off defunding Obamacare…Think about that. Half of one of our major political parties, constituting many millions of citizens, barely has a voice in Washington. If they did have a voice, none of this late madness would have happened. But the legislators who ostensibly represent them are cowards, kittens, balled up in the corner.

Some ‘Civil War.’ As Tomasky concludes, “it says a great deal about the character of the Republican Party, and especially of the conservatives. History will remember.”

One of the perennial phenomena of contemporary politics is the periodic sighting of signs the Christian Right–along with the culture wars it promotes–is dead or dying. It’s so frequent a phenomenon that it’s always a good idea to be skeptical.
This week two different developments were bruited about as indicating a fast fade in the grip of the Christian Right on faith communities where it has flourished. This first was the appearance of a new political spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention.I wrote this about it at Washington Monthly:

Andew Sullivan thinks the Christian Right may finally be on the ropes, and cites as evidence a Wall Street Journal profile of Russell Moore, the man who has succeeded the culture-warhorse Richard Land as chief political affairs spox for the Southern Baptist Convention.

Reading the profile, it’s clear Moore wants to turn the page rhetorically from Land’s many thunderbolts, beginning with welcome warnings of excessive church investment in political causes remote from its mission, and a more irenic attitude towards “sinners” if not sin. And he very clearly wants to dissolve the marriage of convenience between conservative evangelicals and the Republican Party.

But we’ve heard all this before, along with the same expressions of hope from liberals and secular folk (the profile features several) that these zealots are finally going back into their shell just like they did after the Scopes Monkey Trial. I’d remind everyone that a change in strategy and tactics for politically-inclined conservative evangelicals doesn’t necessarily reflect a change in goals or commitments, and also that a loudly proclaimed independence from the GOP has been a hallmark of the Tea Party Movement as well.

Sarah Posner, an adept observer of the Christian Right, added this observation:

The religious right is not a static movement. Although there are still some who go the fire and brimstone route, many others–particularly those telegenic enough to attain a position like Moore’s–are going to give the “culture war” issues a softer touch. But make no mistake: they still see these as cultural issues, and still see their essential role as engagement in the public square as witnesses for (their view of) Christ’s teachings.

The religious right is not a movement with one or even two or three or four leaders. Because it’s a political and cultural undertaking that is playing a long game–rather successfully–it has produced many disciples. (In contrast, liberals tend to see small moments within that long game–like Moore replacing Land–as more consequential than they should.) Moore has an office in Washington, and a press operation. He has a title. He’s smart and thoughtful. I read him. I follow him. He will be on your television a lot. But like with Land (although in a different way) this coverage will overplay his influence. He’s not a general. He can’t order a retreat.

Posner also notes this remark by Moore on Fox News which indicates a robust commitment to the “religious liberty” movement focused on resistance to the Obamacare contraception coverage mandate:

“You can see this happening all over the country not only related to Obamacare. This is just one fiery rafter in a burning house. Religious liberty is under assault all over the place in this country in ways that I think are probably more pronounced than we have seen since the founding era… People who are doing good things in their communities motivated by religious convictions are simply being driven out of the public square because they won’t sing out of the hymn book of the church of the sexual revolution. I just don’t think we can live this way as Americans.”

Not exactly a full retreat from the culture wars, eh?
Meanwhile, other optimistic observers think Pope Francis’ dramatic departures from a culture-war-heavy message from the Vatican could detach American Catholics from the Christian Right, while alienating conservative evangelicals. I wouldn’t bet the farm on that happening, either:

I haven’t been slavishly following Francis’ pronouncements, but it would appear that his many gestures towards change are the religious equivalent of a shift in institutional strategy and tactics rather than doctrine. And while he’s encouraged Catholics to think more broadly and lovingly about the mission of the Church in a broken world, it’s not like he’s excommunicating culture-warriors or telling Right to Life groups to suspend their efforts and instead feed and clothe the poor. The idea that a “liberal” Pope will create an immediate sea-change in American Catholic attitudes is no more compelling than earlier assumptions that conservative Popes could immediately convince their flock in this country to stop taking contraceptives or voting for Democrats.

Let’s wait and see before declaring for the umpteenth time that the Christian Right’s dead.

The following article is by Erica Seifert of Democracy Corps:
Our recent work for Democracy Corps‘ Republican Party Project has provided a deep and serious look inside the GOP. For all that holds the party together — disgust with President Obama and big government, rejection of taxes and regulations, etc. — we find serious fractures within the Republican Party. While individual representatives in very red districts will be able to hold on to their seats, the Republican Party must eventually reconcile its now deeply divided base.
Evangelical Republicans — a third of the GOP base — are consumed by social issues such as gay marriage, homosexuality, and abortion. They view their insular communities as being under serious threat from outside forces that bring “culture rot” into their homes, schools, and towns. As a result, social issues are at the center of their politics. Non-Evangelical, Tea Party Republicans — a quarter of the GOP base — are not interested in the social issues that drive Evangelicals, and they worry that social issues serve only to fracture the party. The alliance between the two groups is tenuous and uneasy. Moderate Republicans — a quarter of GOP partisans — are very conscious that they are a minority within the party. They have become increasingly uncomfortable with positions held by the conservative majority of Evangelicals and Tea Party Republicans. Their distance begins with social issues, like gay marriage and homosexuality, but it is also evident in their positions on immigration and climate change.
As our focus groups reveal, Evangelicals see “culture rot” as the biggest threat to the country–and acceptance of homosexuals is central to their critique of the U.S. today. It feels invasive and inescapable — on TV and in schools:

Like it’s a normal way of life. There’s a minority of people out there are homosexual, but by watching TV, you’d think everybody’s that way. And that’s the way they portray it. (Evangelical man, Roanoke)
Somebody’s got to say “the gay agenda.” That gets thrown around, a lot–that there’s this vast conspiracy of gays that are trying to push this. (Evangelical man, Roanoke)
My daughter’s only one, and I already am making plans for her not to go to school and have that [homosexuals] in her life, because it’s not – Not only that it’s not just something that I agree with, but it’s not something that should have to be forced down her throat. (Evangelical woman, Colorado Springs)
It’s hard when the school is directly opposing what you’re trying to teach your kids. (Evangelical man, Roanoke)

But in stark contrast, Tea Party Republicans are more apt to say, “Who cares?” about gay marriage.

Who cares? (Tea Party woman, Roanoke)
I don’t want the government telling me who I’m sleeping with or whatever in my bedroom, so I just don’t think it’s the government’s business. (Tea Party woman, Roanoke)
I think it’s not important. I mean either way we have so many bigger issues to worry about. (Tea Party woman, Roanoke)
I don’t think the government as any say in it…I personally don’t agree with gay marriage, but I don’t think the government should say who can get married and who can’t. It’s not their business. (Tea Party man, Raleigh)

And they worry that social issues distract the Republican Party–or worse, divide it.

The government, the media, the news media, you know. Of course – it’s gay rights, it’s abortion… What we need to be focused on is the financial situation. All the rest of it, I think they’re throwing stuff out, they’re feeding it to the media. (Tea Party woman, Roanoke)
The government is feeding stuff to the media to get us talking and arguing about gay rights, about abortions and stuff. (Tea Party woman, Roanoke)
I think the Republicans have lost so many people to the Democratic Party because of social issues, because of pro-life and more open ideas where if we could eliminate that from the conversation I think we’d have an entirely different electorate. (Tea Party woman, Roanoke)

And moderates, in stark contrast to both, call the Tea Party “wacky.”

A little wacky. (Moderate woman, Raleigh)
Extreme. (Moderate woman, Raleigh)
It’s kind of, the Tea Party is being just as closed minded as the other group. (Moderate woman, Raleigh)
Idiots. (Moderate man, Colorado)
Just something doesn’t smell right. (Moderate man, Colorado)

And they believe the GOP needs to be more forward-looking. They are very conscious that this is not a party of the future.

I can’t sell my kids on this party. I agree with…some of their positions. But the stupid things… for instance, the rape crap they were saying… I can’t sell them on my party. These kids are smart, they know these stupid politicians are saying crap. And these guys are representing us and they show their ignorance often. And just shut their mouth and do – again, get out of our bedrooms, get out of our lives and do what they’re supposed to do. (Moderate man, Colorado Springs)
I think of a white 54-year-old man in a business suit. And my mom. (Moderate woman, Raleigh)
I just tend to be a little bit more moderate on social issues. However I’m a pretty staunch fiscal conservative so it’s kind of like at least among my peers there’s a change in kind of the conservative group. But it doesn’t necessarily seem like the Republican Party is changing with it. (Moderate woman, Raleigh)

How long can the GOP hold on to this uneasy coalition? Right now, the conservative majority of Evangelicals and Tea Party Republicans make up a majority in states and districts the GOP now controls. In Republican-controlled states, 22 percent are non-Evangelical Tea Party and 33 percent are Evangelical Republicans. In Republican-held districts, 30 percent are Evangelical Republicans, and 23 percent are non-Evangelical Tea Party. Moderate Republicans (many of whom are increasingly tempted to split their votes) are not required to hold these Republican-held jurisdictions. However, in the most vulnerable Republican battleground districts, we find that these fractures do matter.
Click here to read the full memo by Stan Greenberg, James Carville, and Erica Seifert.