One could argue that Romney came from that camp. But, how many Dems are you going to peel off?
1. Yes, I think it's fair to say Romney was a candidate derived from the moderate 'establishment' camp. That he didn't win doesn't mean that a social conservative would have done better; in fact, the data I cite (and lots more that I didn't) indicates that a social conservative ala Santorum would have done significantly worse.
2. How many Dems would start voting Republican if the latter abandoned social conservatism entirely? I don't know; maybe a small contingent, maybe large -- it's an empirical matter either way. I could imagine some Blue Dog Democrats switching over if they support fiscal conservatism but were turned off by Republican social conservatism.
But it isn't an especially important question, since only 31% of Americans are Democrats anyway. At 37%, independents are the largest block of voters (Republicans clock in at a measly 29%). So the question ought to be, "how many independents would such a change in the Republican party attract?" And I think that a fair amount would switch. I am an example of one, so I know they exist: I'd be willing to give genuine fiscal conservatism a try, but won't vote for repealing Roe v Wade nor suppressing gay rights, especially not on the basis of millenia old goat herder opinion steeped in the false certainty of "divine" inspiration.
Again, to cite Rush, do you think the Dems are going to give up their gay-rights/amnesty voters to the Republicans?
NOPE!!
3. As I've already indicated, what Dems do isn't particularly important: what matters is how many of the somewhat ill-informed independents in the middle -- the largest voting block -- such a move would attract. And I think it would be sizable, even if social issues aren't what people generally emphasize most when deciding who to vote for.
Republicans will probably lose votes if they jettison social conservatism; evangelicals and their political conspecifics may well not accept a move toward social liberalism. Republicans will also lose votes if they bake any or all elements of social conservatism into their platform. The point of the data seems to be that they will lose more voters holding onto such conservatism than they will keeping it (since the stock of people who believe in social conservatism is getting smaller and smaller). It isn't an enviable position to be in, but the former is apparently the least worst choice.
2. Rush's mistake in formulating his views is assuming the rest of the country thinks like the political class ( the media, politicians, activists). The fact is, his audience is an extremely small segment of both the population and eligible voters, and so goes it with all the freaks on cable news as well. As I already said, most voters are rather ignorant men and women with no party affiliation and relatively moderate views.