The Incredible Shrinking Republican Base, or
Who Wants to Be a Republican?
This article in today’s NJ documents the increasing weakness of the DE Republican party, noting the serious shift in voter registration from R to D this year. It seems that much of the reasons for the shift are a perception of more excitement on the D side (both for President and Governor) and certainly some R fatigue.
On a national level, Rs are facing having to recruit for, fund and execute congressional campaigns for close to 30 Representatives this year. There is an intriguing new Pew Poll that analyzes the current trends in party ID. From this, Ds are showing real advantages in swing states and while D identification in red states is fairly stable, there is a small decrease in the number of people who identify as Rs. Overall though, the D base is not increasing, but the R base is decreasing — indicative of the increasing structural challenge for Rs this cycle.
It is certainly true that some of the shift to Ds can be attributed to the fact that they simply aren’t Rs, I would expect that some of that change is due to Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy, which tried to ensure that there are D candidates everywhere, providing voters with more exposure to a D message. Bill Foster picking up Denny Hastert’s old seat definitely shows that in an R-leaning district, taking advantage of the structural changes in both the R base and in Is can result in not just a run for the money, but a spectacular pickup.
There are those who think that there is something dishonest or unjust about the an electorate that is willing to vote for someone for just not being George Bush (or one of his familiars). We do need to remember, though, that the Rs worked up their now receding majorities based on national messages (Contract with America) and almost lockstep support of and reiteration of the messages generated to ensure that Rs everyplace put on their happy face re: current national government policies. This strategy almost fatally damaged the Governor of CA until he endured a sweeping loss on a number of state initiatives based on Bush-era conservative ideology. His decision to jettison absolute adherence to his current party’s ideological positions in favor of a more moderate approach that may actually get some governing done is Exhibit A here. If you are asking folks to identify with you with a narrative that depends on national issues, then you should not be too surprised when that connection becomes a liability.
And given that there’s a concerted effort by a group of official Rs to detach the Bush Legacy from the history of conservatives (probably the same folks who were talking up as the next Truman sometime back), it seems Rs know that all too well.
My (quite serious) wonder here is one you express early on: how many Rs are going to the Ds just because they are NOT-Rs.
Because I don’t believe we are headed to a long period of one-party ascendancy (because there really are big divisions in this country over social issues), I am wondering what happens if Chuck Hagel, Michael Bloomberg, and a lot of others are right: the Rs are disintegrating and a new major party is on the horizon?
“the Rs are disintegrating and a new major party is on the horizon”
Perhaps the moderate R’s are leaving the GOP because they are tired of the wingnuts.
Personally, I’d like to see 3 major parties emerge:
1. Repubs of mostly wingunts.
2. A new party of moderate Repubs and DLC Dems.
3. Dems of mostly progressives.
#1 would rapidly evaporate into the oblivion it deserves and 2 & 3 could battle it out for power, which would certainly be better than what we have now.
GOPers=Toxic
Dana, have you thought about the fact that there might already be two parties within the Democratic Party? Oversimplification I know but I sure feel that way some days.
Rebecca, Interesting point: how would you divide them, by politics only or by ideology?
Steve: Good question. Coincidentally, the two currently seem to dovetail in this sense. From a strategic political standpoint, there is the grassroots philosophy versus what I call the ‘Top-down’, or endorsement-heavy, strategy. It so happens that the Obama campaign has been a grassroots campaign as opposed to Hillary’s top-down approach.
I firmly believe that the grassroots approach is best for the Party b/c the 50-state strategy pushed by Gov. Dean has led to real party-building, in Delaware and throughout the country.
I think that ideological purity, as embodied in the McGovern campaign of 1972, is sort of a thing of the past. While the grassroots won’t support ‘Republicrats’, I think we’re a bit more realistic in our older age than we were during 1972.
That is not to say, however, that we’ll blindly continue to back the likes of Tom Carper if he persists in pursuing his peculiar brand of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ bipartisanship. It’s no longer enough to simply argue that he’s not as bad as Joe Lieberman. No one is.
“Dana, have you thought about the fact that there might already be two parties within the Democratic Party? Oversimplification I know but I sure feel that way some days.”
It is an oversimplification, but when I think of Carper voting for torture, for telecom immunity and for cutting back on LIHEAP funds, I don’t recognize him and think he must be some other kind of critter.
Congratulate George Bush and Dick Cheney with two wars, a 9 trillion deficit, gas prices nearing 4 dollars, a recession looming (if not already here), the sub prime mortgage crisis with people losing their homes. The list goes on. Democrats can be thankful, I suppose, there will not be another Republican taking the White House this election season.
I am hopeful Obama can bounce back from the Rev. Wright issue. Obama’s speech in Philadelphia, I believe, was historic and sufficient to understand Obama and exonerate him from the media buzz that he condoned the incendiary remarks by Wright.
With both George Bush and Mike Castle endorsing John (another hundred years in Iraq) McCain being seated in the White House, while I don’t believe it will happen, Democrats must do everything in their power to defeat McCain!
In recent press accounts, Mike Castle’s ineffectiveness, being in the minority party, may be good reason for Castle to be retired this election season. I cannot think of one republican at the national or local level that strikes me as a candidate I could get behind. Furthermore, Rep. Bob Gilligan has publicly stated he wishes to see a Democratic controlled House of Representatives in Dover this elections season. Let’s give Rep. Gilligan his House majority by working hard with Democratic Campaign’s all over the state to make this happen!
I think that while Dean’s 50-state strategy has considerably changed the landscape in political terms, it has also been a factor in exposing the reality that the Dems (like the GOP in this sense) are a large coalition of about three major interest groups that don’t always get along.
As for Obama running a “bottom-up” campaign, I know that’s the perception that his campaign has been cultivating, but if you look at his major endorsers, his list of close advisors, and the strategies behind his media, he begins to look more like the Clinton operation in the early 1990s than a new phenomenon.
What is as yet to be determined is how effectively he bounces back from a serious hit. The Wright controversy (whether contrived or not) has represented a serious hit on his campaign, and while the speech was good I have yet to see evidence that, Clinton-like, he can move his campaign beyond it.
Steve, I don’t know how many Rs (or Is for that matter) are moving to Ds simply because they are Not-Rs, but if I had to guess it would be a majority this cycle. In listening to the Rs around me, many seem to have just had enough and want government that won’t embarrass them and get on with addressing their issues.
I wouldn’t claim that there is a new one-party ascendancy from any of this data, but there is a great opportunity for Ds if they can take it. And, I think that if the Rs would suddenly throw their social conservatives under the bus they’d find themselves in abit more competitive position (which is largely what Dana said — I just didn’t give them their own party).
As far as a new party, I don’t know, but suspect is wishful thinking on behalf of Hagel and Bloomberg. If McCain should get elected, the question is whether he will do anything at all to make any structural repair to his party brand.
I don’t think that Sagacious Steve is arguing that Obama’s campaign is run “bottom-up”; he is talking about an effective grassroots campaign — Obama’s campaign has been skilled so far in translating enthusiasm to work and giving local field organizations some leeway in customizing the candidate’s message. Certainly there is still direction from upper levels, but asking people for ideas on how to win, letting them talk to their neighbors based on local issues and concerns, creating community-based GOTV ops helps the Obama campaign to keep up its operational pace.
The Clinton campaign has it volunteers and enthusiasts too — but is more traditionally run and counted (for awhile) on basically picking up the “machine” and counting on those entrenched networks to deliver messaging and do GOTV.
I think that while Dean’s 50-state strategy has considerably changed the landscape in political terms, it has also been a factor in exposing the reality that the Dems (like the GOP in this sense) are a large coalition of about three major interest groups that don’t always get along.
You’re kidding here, right? Dems have been well known for almost as long as my political memory as a bundle of special interests groups that often sound like the “Peoples Front of Judea” bit from the Life of Brian movie. Dean has largely served as a flash point between the D grassroots advocates vs the D machine advocates. It can be hard to tell, but Dean has been winning this battle too.
Unfortunately, I think this year Dean (with Hillary’s help) may be losing you the war while he wins the battle.
It’s a wonder you found the story on that god-awful website.
“Rep. Bob Gilligan has publicly stated he wishes to see a Democratic controlled House of Representatives in Dover this elections season. Let’s give Rep. Gilligan his House majority”
I cannot think of anything that would be worse for progressive government in Delaware than giving Bob Gilligan and his party control of the House. I’ll change my mind the next time — rather, the first time — Gilligan does something progressive.
Steve Newton wrote:
“Unfortunately, I think this year Dean (with Hillary’s help) may be losing you the war while he wins the battle.”
Here’s why I disagree with Steve. The last three or four Presidential elections have been fought on a circumscribed battlefield, where relatively small segments of the electorate in just a handful of states have ultimately determined the winner. The Roves and McAuliffes of this world are skilled in getting to 50% plus one.
The Dean 50-state strategy effectively alters the calculus by putting more states in play. The Obama campaign really alters the calculus by attracting record numbers of volunteers and primary voters.
It is why the Clinton campaign seems to be litigating more than they’re campaigning: if they can’t control the calculus, they can’t win on a reshaped battlefield.
While I agree with Steve that Hillary’s campaign is doing the eventual nominee no favors, I think that once the spotlight shifts to the Democratic nominee vs. McCain, McCain is gonna be in a very shaky position, perhaps even worse than Bob Dole was. After all McCain is largely defending the record of arguably the least popular president in our history.
I think we are looking at a bright and shining moment here, on several levels. There may be a synergy going on that will make 2008 an amazing year.
First, you’ve got Dean’s 50-state-strategy that is engaging people who haven’t ever been engaged before.
Next, you’ve got the “environment”, if you will, which is bringing out record numbers of voters.
Finally, you’ve got Obama who seems to be able to reach across party lines.
This could be the most participatory election we’ve seen for a long time. And that’s what it will take to shake up the corporate culture in Washington. It won’t happen in one cycle but 2008 could be a cornerstone for change.
I cannot think of anything that would be worse for progressive government in Delaware than giving Bob Gilligan and his party control of the House. I’ll change my mind the next time — rather, the first time — Gilligan does something progressive.
*
I concur.
He even promised Kilroy that he would back transparency in school district funds and reneged in the space of a month’s time according to the blog. This is the guy who likes things the way they are and who says that this is the way things have been done since he got to Dover thirty years ago and he refuses to change a thing.
Meanwhile the state is sinking under the weight of the good old boy give-aways.
is SHInking worse than SHRinking? because it sure sounds like it is
By the way, I like the editorial cartoon in the NJ today showing Karen Peterson carrying a chainsaw labeled “Open Government” – she’s carrying it by the blade.
http://delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=opinion
Thanks DV, I fixed that. I’m always embarrassed to admit that I am not the best proofreader of my own writing — I just seem to read what is supposed to be there.
The Dean 50-state strategy effectively alters the calculus by putting more states in play. The Obama campaign really alters the calculus by attracting record numbers of volunteers and primary voters.
I’ve argued before that I think that Obama is working on getting to a larger goal — not just winning, but winning with a true governing coalition, which you don’t really get with 50+1. Certainly it is too soon to know if he can pull it off, but it is an honorable effort.
Making Howard Dean the center of the MI and FL delegate controversy is emblematic of the character of the Clinton campaign. He is in a tough situation — he either has to advocate damaging the credibility of the process or he insists that these delegations live with the consequences of breaking the rules they agreed to. Either way he gets to be a bad guy for somebody. I hope they stick to the rules, and hope that this entire fiasco provides some incentive for both parties to radically change the primary process for 2016.
I think shinking was fine..I thought it was a Jason post to be honest…
People who realize that they were suckers for the ‘ol Bait-and-Switch, for the most part, will shun the Grifters next time around.
’08 will determine the future of the current conglomeration of the GOP. And I think they’re all out of bailing wire.
But with that said, this country is chock-full of stupid people who’ll vote against their economic interests just because they are fooled into believing that certain wedge issues (which do not directly affect their lives, such as abortion and race) are actually more important than Iraq and the Credit Crunch….so nothing’s assured.