Whether you describe it is “new speak” or not, there is a block of conservative voters who genuinely find those social issues to be the most important thing above all else. And those voters are extremely unlikely to back candidates or a party who has the exact opposite position on those issues (and others), simply out of anger. Just as the more old school conservatives (who tend not to be socially conservatives) are, as you point out, unlikely to back a Republican candidate in large part because of the parties commitment to said social issues. You’re mistaking my argument. It doesn’t matter what variety of conservative, what variety of liberal. What particular ideological block we’re talking about. Pick one, and they aren’t going to vote for the opposite of their pet issues or ideological position in general just because they’re pissed. At least not in the sort of numbers suggested. And not in an environment of highly partisan political polarization. We’re sitting in a political atmosphere where the other-side is routinely demonized. “Liberal” is a dirty word, “Conservative” less so but that approach is still used. And the “moderates” oh they’re the worst, they might as well be the other guys! At least when they’re not secret Illuminati style Trojan horses! People might get pissed, and there is and will be interest in non-establishment or independent candidates because of that. But to assume that interest will uniformly move large groups of people towards any independent so long as they are independent regardless of ideology is bizarre. To assume those large groups of people will just happen to back your particular guy is wishful thinking. Where people do so they’ll tend to find their other option in someone/something that has some crossover with their own ideology.
