GOP Losses Span Nearly All Demographic Groups

[shecky]

The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. Since the first year of George W. Bush's presidency in 2001, the Republican Party has maintained its support only among frequent churchgoers, with conservatives and senior citizens showing minimal decline. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx?CSTS=alert)There's been some hand wringing about the demise of the Republican party lately, from even well respected persons. I've tended to shrug off such such suggestions as either partisan wishful thinking, or gloom mongering (depending on the kind of partisan). But this Gallup poll has made me wonder a bit. GOP affiliation since 2001 looks to have suffered a significant blow among all but the most faithful.

Perhaps the Republican brand is truly damaged beyond repair. I'm not yet convinced, but the numbers paint a pretty dismal picture. To make matters worse, the Party's leaders have yet to hit bottom. Doing things like yelling “Democrat Socialist Party” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21638.html) louder and louder won't bring folks back into the fold. And you have the likes of Republican Sen. Jim DeMint saying "he’d rather have 30 senators who stand on principle than 60 who have none." (http://www.thestate.com/local/story/790329.html) Which would probably suit the Democrats just fine.

[shecky]

Then again, some prominent Democrats may face serious electability problems (http://www.lvrj.com/news/45387987.html) in the years ahead:

CARSON CITY -- Nearly half of Nevadans have had enough of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as the powerful Democrat heads into his re-election campaign, a new Las Vegas Review-Journal poll finds.
About a third of the state's voters would re-elect Reid if the 2010 election were held today, according to the poll, but 45 percent say they would definitely vote to replace him. Seventeen percent would consider another candidate.



If the Republicans had any smarts at all, they'd shut the hell up and let the Democrats hang themselves. The instead seem to have decided, if anyone's gonna be hanging themselves, it'll be the Republicans who'll succeed.

[davefoc]

Thanks for the link Shecky. The question remains as to what this kind of data suggests about the future of the Republican Party.

I would like to think that it indicated that the current Republican Party would morph into a more economically conservative, less corrupt, less militaristic and less socially conservative entity to compete more successfully for the American voter.

Almost certainly it doesn't mean that. The reality seems to be that the nature of politicians is that they will always spend more money than is available. The Republicans will just lean towards Republican interest groups and the Democrats will just lean toward Democratic interest groups to spend money that the country doesn't have on.

And for better or worse the current Republican party is tied to social conservative issues. Over the very long haul the Republican Party would be marginalized if it sticks with these issues too long, but for the foreseeable future social conservative views will still be winning ones in much of the country.

And the fact seems to be the alliance between the military-industrial complex and the Republicans jingoistic efforts to fire up militant ideas in the US is just too strongly rooted as a strategy in the Republican Party right now to be subject to any kind of change.

So my guess is that for the next twenty years or so the Republican Party will stay pretty much as it is. It will regain power as the Democrats stumble on various issues, like in California where the public funds have been squandered on massive public employee benefits leaving the state in a highly precarious financial position with Democratic politicians in power that are too deeply connected to the public employee unions to do anything about it.

One side note on California. A friend of mine owns one of the last furniture manufacturing businesses in California. The Democratic controlled state institutions have worked tirelessly to shut down furniture manufacturing in the state with absurd workers compensation rules (promoted by the Democratic trial lawyer connections), absurd laws that led to predatory law suits that extorted funds from businesses based on various legal schemes, and a state level EPA that seems incapable of balancing the needs for jobs with their extreme environmental ideology. Interestingly as the furniture manufacturing businesses have been shut down the EPA has raised the environmental fees on the remaining businesses with the idea that since there are now less businesses remaining they need to raise fees on those businesses to make up for the short fall. Eventually I suspect the people in California will throw the Democrats out and replace them with some Republicans who might mitigate some of the Democratic excesses while they create their own problems with their own special interest driven shenanigans.

[madurobob]

James Carville's new book takes a lot of partisan pokes at this sort of poll data. The title? "40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule The Next Generation".

I don't buy the 40 year premise, but the polls sure look miserable for the GOP these days. Whites over 60 who attend church regularly, that's the party in a nutshell according to the poll. Dick Cheney on TV every other night doesn't seem to be helping.

[drkitten]

And for better or worse the current Republican party is tied to social conservative issues. Over the very long haul the Republican Party would be marginalized if it sticks with these issues too long, but for the foreseeable future social conservative views will still be winning ones in much of the country.

And that's part of the problem.

Why should the Republicans tie themselves to views that are only winning in "much of the country" instead of putting together a collection of different views so that they can be competitive in races all over the country?

The primary problem seems to be an insistance on top-down leadership. If Rush doesn't like you, you're not a Real Republican. It's much harder to be a pro-choice Republican than a pro-life Democrat, for example.

[madurobob]

The primary problem seems to be an insistance on top-down leadership. If Rush doesn't like you, you're not a Real Republican. It's much harder to be a pro-choice Republican than a pro-life Democrat, for example.

I've always seen it as a catered dinner versus a buffet. Republican leadership tells them what few key issues are important. Everyone must agree on those issues or go hungry. Democrats don't have that focus, they have dozens and dozens of issues and you can pick any 3 from column A, any 3 from column B, etc... I little taste of everything but no full meal of any one thing.

[Brainster]

I suspect strongly that similar declines could be found in self-identified Democrats from 1993-2001 (and even larger declines from early 1997-early 2005). It's your basic peak to trough comparison. Gallup makes it clear that the big change in the eight year period was Katrina; eventually the memory of that will fade and be replaced by something that Obama botches.

The GOP will win seats on net in the House of Representatives in 2010. You can take that one to the bank.

[davefoc]

And that's part of the problem.

Why should the Republicans tie themselves to views that are only winning in "much of the country" instead of putting together a collection of different views so that they can be competitive in races all over the country?

The primary problem seems to be an insistence on top-down leadership. If Rush doesn't like you, you're not a Real Republican. It's much harder to be a pro-choice Republican than a pro-life Democrat, for example.

I think you and madurobob seem to be right that the nature of the Republican Party organization and ideology right now seems to limit the ability of the party to form a more diverse coalition that might allow the Republican Party to attract more members.

I'm not sure why that is exactly. There seems to be a kind of synergy between the rise of partisan Republican pundits and partisan Republican media outlets and the narrowing of the Republican coalition. Part of the problem might be that when it comes to economics the Republican Party is torn in three directions by different wings. The social conservative wing doesn't particularly favor free market economic ideas, they just don't want the gays to marry. The business wing doesn't care much about free market ideas they just want crony driven government contracts and the right to pollute without too much government interference, and the free market wing is opposed to the Republican move to expand the size of government and its current penchant for fiscal irresponsibility.

It is not possible to find an easy middle ground between these groups. So the strategy adopted by the Republican Party has been to throw the fiscal conservative, free market types under the bus and pander full out to the Social conservatives and the Republican leaning corporate cronies.

[drkitten]

It is not possible to find an easy middle ground between these groups.

The problem is,.... you don't need to.

Most of the free-market types and the crony capitalists don't really care about gay marriage, which leaves them free to "market" their support in Congress to the highest bidder. Similarly, most of the social conservatives don't really care about -- I'll be harsh here and suggest "don't understand" -- economics, so they're free to swap their support to whoever will pander to their particular set of perversions. That's how politics is supposed to work; you build coalitions of people with whom you can work and the policies that are the most acceptable to the broadest number of people are the ones that get implemented.

The Republicans have been following more or less the reverse of that strategy.



So the strategy adopted by the Republican Party has been to throw the fiscal conservative, free market types under the bus and pander full out to the Social conservatives and the Republican leaning corporate cronies.

... which is, frankly, stupid. There is no reason to throw anyone under the bus, especially when you've only got 39 votes in the Senate. If I got myself elected as a Republican senator from Massachusetts, on the basis of my sheer, phenomenal, personal magnetism and charm, that's better for the Republicans (and worse for the Democrats) no matter HOW I vote if the alternative is a moderate who caucuses with the Democrats. The idea of replacing an electable candidate who agrees with the Republican leadership 50% of the time with an unelectable one who agrees with the Republican leadership 100% of the time is still a losing idea.

[Brainster]

Both parties have similar dynamics, though, because in the two-party system we don't have coalition governments, we have coalition parties. The Democrats also have their natural internal arguments; the interests of the blue collar workers seldom intersect with that of the environmentalists or the feminists. So everybody gets half a loaf.

And you'd be hard-pressed to name a substantive thing that the social conservatives have gotten from the GOP. Abortion's still legal; most of the gay marriage bans have been accomplished through voter referendums, not legislative enactments. Evolution is still taught in the schools, as is sex ed, but the day does not begin with a prayer. DOMA? Passed with reasonably bipartisan support and signed by Clinton, not a Republican the last time I looked.

To be honest, it's kind of like saying the Democrats have sold their souls to the gay lobby; it may rally the partisans on the other side, but the gays are starting to wonder when they actually get something tangible from owning the party.

[davefoc]

...

... which [throwing free market types under the bus] is, frankly, stupid. There is no reason to throw anyone under the bus, especially when you've only got 39 votes in the Senate. If I got myself elected as a Republican senator from Massachusetts, on the basis of my sheer, phenomenal, personal magnetism and charm, that's better for the Republicans (and worse for the Democrats) no matter HOW I vote if the alternative is a moderate who caucuses with the Democrats. The idea of replacing an electable candidate who agrees with the Republican leadership 50% of the time with an unelectable one who agrees with the Republican leadership 100% of the time is still a losing idea.

It is stupid, if your only goal is to build the largest possible Republican Party coalition, probably. But the free market types are not a major source of Republican funding and the corporations and trade groups looking for special advantages are. So you as a Republican legislator need to come to a balance between your free market ideas and doing what your principal economic benefactors want you to do. Both political parties need to balance the good of the whole versus giving special advantages to the people that got them elected. Too much special interest legislation that works against the interests of the nation and they lose elections because of bad governance. Too little graft and you can't win elections in the first place because you don't have the money. It's a difficult problem to come to exactly the right balance to stay in power. The Republicans under George Bush went too far in the graft direction to remain in power, but while it was going on they still got lots of cool trips and other miscellaneous bennies.

ETA: I do agree with you, drkitten, that there is a middle ground in exactly the way you described it that the Republican Party could come to that would increase the size of at least their ideological coalition. The problem seems to be to balance the desire and need for money which is largely dependent on special interest legislation that is against the interests of the nation as a whole.

[Brainster]

... which is, frankly, stupid. There is no reason to throw anyone under the bus, especially when you've only got 39 votes in the Senate. If I got myself elected as a Republican senator from Massachusetts, on the basis of my sheer, phenomenal, personal magnetism and charm, that's better for the Republicans (and worse for the Democrats) no matter HOW I vote if the alternative is a moderate who caucuses with the Democrats. The idea of replacing an electable candidate who agrees with the Republican leadership 50% of the time with an unelectable one who agrees with the Republican leadership 100% of the time is still a losing idea.

I agree, but the argument from the other side (and I have commonly heard this from the left regarding moderate Democrats) is that politics is like a tug of war; you don't win by moving closer to the middle. Moderates weaken the party's message because the GOP can always point to an Evan Bayh or the Democrats to a John McCain and say, "See? Even one of their own party members...."

From my standpoint, I don't think tugging on the rope does much in politics. It is a rare person who changes their mind about party identification based on arguments and logic; mostly it's changing circumstances, either nationally or personally.

[drkitten]

But the free market types are not a major source of Republican funding and the corporations and trade groups looking for special advantages are.

So accept money from both groups -- if you don't, then your opponents will.


So you as a Republican legislator need to come to a balance between your free market ideas and doing what your principal economic benefactors want you to do.

And part of the way to optimize that balance is by building the largest possible coalition so that you have as many favors to trade as possible.

It's not possible (at least in the States) to be a single-issue representative; you have to vote on too many issues. It's possible, but stupid, to be a single-issue voter, but this requires a certain amount of willful blindness on your part to many other opportunities that affect your interest. A smart voter will be able to look at what his representative has done -- "Yes, I voted to allow gay marriage, but I also prevented California from sucking all of the water out from your river, so at least you'll be able to shower and wash dishes next year." -- to improve his overall situation. A smart legistator will try to avoid relying on single-issue voters precisely because they're unsatisfiable.

The problem is that the Republicans have created a situation where they not only have to rely on what amount to single-issue voters, but they are forced to become single-issue representatives. That's a political death sentence.

Even in places like Northern Ireland,... where "national" politics tend to be single issue, the local politicians can't let themselves be dominated in this way. Many of the cities (Derry, in particular, as I recall) have set up an unofficial rota of offices (This year, it's time for a Unionist to be mayor and a Nationalist to be chairman of the Board of Selectmen) precisely so that the day to day working needs of the city can be addressed. Streets still need to be paved and garbage to be collected regardless of whether or not you want to be part of the Republic of Ireland. Politicians who forget about the garbage and streets fail.

The Republicans, in this regard, have failed. The national leaders are not leaving any space for the politicians who want to make sure their streets are still paved back home.

[drkitten]

I agree, but the argument from the other side (and I have commonly heard this from the left regarding moderate Democrats) is that politics is like a tug of war; you don't win by moving closer to the middle.

Well, this is not only a silly argument (politics isn't like a tug of war; there's no rope, for one), but outright wrong (at least for the US). For example, the "race to the middle" is well-documented in US presidential elections, but also in most statewide elections as well; the person nominated by the Democrats immediately tries to court undecided or moderately Republican votes, and vice versa.

You do, in fact, win by moving closer to the middle. Because that's where the votes and the support are.

So you can tell whoever made that argument that they're dumber than a bag of hammers.

Moderates weaken the party's message

And that's precisely the problem. As they say in the theater, "if you want to send a message, call Western Union." Politics isn't about "a message." It's about policy, and specifically, about delivering policy changes that your constituency desires. I don't want to "send a message" that we need more funding for fur-bearing trout ranches. I want more money for fur-bearing trout ranches, and I sent you to DC to deliver that for me.

The way you deliver policy change is by outvoting your opponent, not by being clearer in the message you send. That's one of the factors that keeps the Libertarians from ever being a factor in politics; they're so concerned about watering down "their message" that they're typically unwilling to forge a political compromise in order to push through part of their message.


From my standpoint, I don't think tugging on the rope does much in politics. It is a rare person who changes their mind about party identification based on arguments and logic; mostly it's changing circumstances, either nationally or personally.

I think you underestimate the American public. They're quite imaginative. One of the most effective ways to win votes is to ask the public to imagine something, either what would happen if your opponent won (gasp! horror!) or alternatively, if you won (smiles and sunshine!) That's one of the reasons that Willie Horton was so effective as an image; people were invited to imagine Willie behind every tree, and that Dukakis had set him free to be there.

That's another reason why single-issue voters can be a problem; they're probably the least imaginative group -- they simply can't (or won't) imagine the world being any different no matter what changes. It does little good to point out that in my imagined world in which gays are permitted to marry, everyone will be five times better off than they are now (because I've so skillfully managed the economy).

[dudalb]

If the Republicans had any smarts at all, they'd shut the hell up and let the Democrats hang themselves. The instead seem to have decided, if anyone's gonna be hanging themselves, it'll be the Republicans who'll succeed.

Agreed. In their handling of the Pelosi case, they violated the rule about when your enemy is destroying themsleves, don't try to interefere because it might make your enemy realise what they are doing. As long as it was Pelosi vs the CIA, the Dems were taking damage over this because it made Pelosi look like either a liar or a fool. When the GOP made it a partisan issue, it became just another political mudfight.

[Random]

The Republicans, in this regard, have failed. The national leaders are not leaving any space for the politicians who want to make sure their streets are still paved back home.

It’s worse than that. One of the points of holy writ of the modern Republican party is that government can’t do anything right. This is why we get all this small government/privatization claptrap. If the GOP actually ran a successful government it would invalidate their own philosophy.

Now, as long as the GOP is in the minority it’s not a problem. They can sit on the sidelines and trash talk the people who are actually trying to make government work without fear of consequences because they have no power and can always blame the other guy. When they actually got their hands on everything in 2001-2007, they had no more excuses and proceeded to screw everything up.

Failure is quite literally built into GOP government.

Frankly, the whole “government is the problem” routine never made much sense as an election strategy in the first place. If I go to a doctor and he says, “You know, this modern medicine thing is a crock. I prefer bloodletting”, I go to a different doctor. If a go to a bank and the manager says, “Money shmoney, it’s all just little pieces of paper, we should have never left the barter system”, I go to a different bank. But if a politician says, “Government can’t do anything right. Government is the cause of all the worlds misery,” people line up to put that person in charge of the government?

[davefoc]

I think I have been underestimating the degree to which the Republican Party has lost support. As per this article the Republican Party has gone from a 43/43 split with the Democrats to a 36/53 split with Democrats.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/obamas-new-electorate-pol_n_206249.html

That is a pretty amazing drop. So using a war as an excuse for giant crony driven pork projects, massive fiscal irresponsibility, huge failures of governance and massive corruption scandals can have some effect on support for a political party. I'd like to think that anyway.

Still, I don't see any outward signs that the Republicans plan anything different than what they have been doing. Mostly it looks like their plan is to work tirelessly to find ways to attack Obama even if they have to make stuff up and to use every issue as an opportunity for political manipulations. If there are any signs out there that the Republican Party has any thoughts about actually engaging in rational governance if they ever get the chance again I'd like to know what they are. Gingrich sounds like he might be trying to suggest the possibility of something like that from time to time but then he just jumps back into his role as mindless partisan spinner.