Susan Page writes politics for USA Today and she's good. Read her analysis of the election just ended, it really covers the various issues and sub-groups.
After reading Page's reasonably even-handed summation, I come up with the following question which confronts the leaders of the Republican Party: Where is the low-hanging fruit? That is, which group that didn't much vote for us in 2012 can we reasonably talk into voting for us in 2014 and beyond?
It is an interesting dilemma. Should the GOP, which does a great job of getting white men to vote for it, likewise try to get non-white men to also vote Republican? In other words, should it try to become the Men's Party?
Alternatively, should a party which gets most of the votes of married white women try to get the votes of non-married women too? Or at least the votes of non-married white women? In other words, becoming the White People's Party. That gives off ugly vibes, but could work.
Depending on which of these was chosen, quite different policy prescriptions would follow. One thing working in the GOP's favor is that older voters tend to vote Republican, and the Baby Boomers population bulge is getting to the "older" phase of life.
Here's a thought experiment: how many GOP voters would be lost to the Dems. if the party no longer had planks in its platform opposing abortion and same-sex marriage? In other words, how many people would like to vote Dem but now vote GOP because it opposes these lifestyle issues? How many would switch simply out of pique?
Put another way, to what extent are evangelical Christians attracted to the GOP by its emphasis on smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, strong defense, support for Israel - other-than-lifestyle issues? There should be a way to measure this via social research.
While measuring, why not try to determine how many votes we lose by opposing same sex marriage and abortion? How many would vote GOP were it not for our opposition?
I'm just asking....
