Urbanization, fear, and the GOP's electability

Looking at Nate Silver's chart, I noticed a large anomaly in the urban vote's trend:



I posit that the most recent Republican successes at the national level (including the aggregate result of winning majorities in Congress) owed more to threat-mongering than the appeal of domestic Republican policies—be they social or economic.

Thus it is little wonder to see GOPers continuing to defend the utility of torture. If the public isn't scared enough to demand torture-as-policy, we probably won't be scared enough to elect Republicans again in their current state.

And this is also why Obama's message of hope was successful among swing voters. It attacked Republicans' newfound strength by convincing them to be less fearful, restoring the trend.

Short of treasonous desire for another 9/11-style attack plus a botched Democratic response, I think fear is unlikely to be a winning bet again. What then should the GOP focus on?

Daily Beast collected a symposium of views from the right. I agree with David Frum's prescription:

Over the longer term, [the GOP] needs to retool itself so it can become competitive in the Northeast, Midwest, and California. In my view, that means four things: 1) a more-relevant economic message with health care at its core; 2) an environmental policy based on science; 3) a softer tone on social issues; 4) a renewed emphasis on competence in government.

There are people in the party who are pointing in this direction, most notably Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah. It’s not a message the party wants to hear right this moment, but I think it’s the direction we will see the party taking.

I've heard many other pundits express concern that the GOP now regional party of the South and East of the Rockies. And this looks apparent on a standard map:



However, I think we should stop talking in terms regions and think more about what these voters have in common. Take a look at these cartograms with states sized by the number of electoral votes they posses. EVs correspond with that state's number of members in Congress, based on their total population in the last census:



And clearly these EV-proportioned blue states, with their higher population density, tend to be more urbanized (compare with a map of the US at night). The effect is even more pronounced when we plot the county-level results and see large splotches of blue in a sea of red countryside. 

Instead of worrying about appealing to macro regions, I think the GOP should try to develop a platform that better appeals to urban voters everywhere. If the urban vote could shift 5+ points in their favor, I think they'd be back in business.

Here are Frum's prescriptions again:

1) a more-relevant economic message with health care at its core
2) an environmental policy based on science
3) a softer tone on social issues
4) a renewed emphasis on competence in government

This seems like a good start to me. What more could be done to appeal to urban voters in particular?

Update: According to ABC exit polls, only 9% considered terrorism to be the most important issue in 2008. They went for McCain by a huge margin:


In 2004, CNN put this number at 19% with a virtually identical 86-14 split.

Now obviously there are people who are more likely to vote Republican because of terrorism yet who don't rank it as their #1 issue; but this gives us some idea of its salience for the GOP's 2004 victories.