The Republican Point of No Return

There was a point not long after the 2006 midterm elections when observers began to note that Republicans were in truly terrible shape, that a staggering number of Senate and House Republicans were acutely vulnerable in their re-elections, and that in all likelihood, if the GOP failed to reconnect with voters, they would suffer even more substantial losses in 2008.

Republicans are in even weaker shape now. The party is contracting in size as it self-marginalizes; the number of voters who identify themselves as Republican is at its lowest point in decades, and nearly every poll shows a dramatic divergence of opinion between self-identifying Republicans and self-identifying Independents. The fight for the "middle voter" has been fought and won by the Democrats, who are consistently viewed as more capable on substantive policy issues than Republicans. A recent Gallup poll showed that 71 percent of voters trust Obama on the economy. That number is built on a strong coalition of Democratic and Independent voters. 97 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Independents expressed confidence in Obama's handling of the economy, compared to only 38 percent of Republicans. On an issue as critically important to voters as the economy, a 30 point divide in viewpoints between Republicans and Independents spells serious trouble going forward.

If the GOP has any hope of being competitive in the 2010 midterms, it had better figure out a way to appeal to Independents again. But if Republicans had any intention of reconnecting with those voters, this week's headlines don't give any indication.

During the much-panned Republican "tea party" protests, aimed at high taxes (and also wasteful spending and also socialism and also Obama's secret Muslim roots and also his fake birth certificate and also a few other things one might write on a poster board), Texas Governor Rick Perry threatened to secede. Tom Delay defended him - and secession. So did Rush Limbaugh. Republicans touted the protests as an impressive showing of conservative online organizing. But their success in numbers belies a serious problem.

Republicans are right to recognize how critical their capacity to organize will be toward their future electoral success. But as the Republican base gets smaller, and more ideological, organizing the base may very well mean alienating a critical group of voters - just about everyone else. Still Republican politicians are no less dependent on their base for money and volunteers, which may explain the recent propensity of national Republicans to read conspiracy-driven paranoia into the Congressional Record. The complication, of course, is that Republicans who are unable to depend on the GOP base will never build an organization capable of winning elections. But those who do depend on that base will be constrained by a policy agenda well outside the mainstream.

In Pennsylvania, the conflict between base voters and moderates might help guarantee the Democratic pickup of a 60th Senate seat. Senator Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican who has a long history with Pennsylvania voters , would be tough for a Democrat to defeat in a general election. But Specter may never get that far. He's being challenged from his right in the Republican Primary by Pat Toomey, who currently leads him by 14 points. Toomey, however, is far too conservative for Pennsylvania voters, and will almost certainly lose a race to a Democrat that Specter may have won.

In every way imaginable, the party so famous for using political wedges has spent the three months since Obama's inauguration driving one of the most politically consequential wedges between themselves and Independents. If Republicans do manage to regroup and recalibrate before 2010, if they are able to prevent further losses 19 months from now, the story will no doubt be that they adopted a strategy that could appeal to Independents, as well as conservatives.

Yet if they continue, as they have continued, to mobilize the most unsavory of the right, to speak to their issues and theirs alone, despite facts and evidence, despite polls and focus groups, despite reason and strategy, they will surely reach a point of no return and soon, a point beyond which success in the midterms will be impossible.

Already critical decisions are being made about 2010. The NRCC and NRSC are recruiting Republican candidates, studying the map, making decisions about which seats they'll need to defend as well as which Democrats they might unseat. These decisions are being made based on the framework of this current strategy and the expectation that it will continue. Sitting Members of Congress have already been forced into votes that are popular with their bases, but quite unpopular elsewhere. The far right might be proud, for example, of unanimous Republican opposition to the stimulus bill in the House. But Independent voters will no doubt wonder why Republicans voted against the biggest middle class tax cut in history, and why they continue to aggressively oppose economic policies that Independents largely support.

Without an immediate about-face, it's hard to imagine what the GOP could actually do to stop the hemorrhaging. Every day Republicans are taking public positions that will haunt them next November. As is so often the case with campaigns, these early decisions are among the most important, and they are being made at a time when the party lacks direction or purpose or message, and at a time when the incompetence of those in charge means a change in strategy is unlikely. Even at this early juncture, more than a year and half before the midterms, the Republican party has gone all-in. When panicked GOP operatives finally start looking for that point of no return coming up ahead, they better take a deep breath, then look directly behind them.

Comments

[GordonA]

I understand why a 'political strategist" would be most concerned with what is most popular, but I posit that people in both parties should concerned first with being ethical, next with advocating effective policies, and then betting that these two things will take care of the popularity part.
I am also not sure that the Democrat party won't see the Republican meltdown as an opportunity to meltdown itself. It has happened before.

[Jen Lepp]

I remember years ago in college during political science class when I was taught about the merits of the defacto two party system, the merits of two sides tugging a rope and solutions having to be reached in the center via compromise.

The cries of fascism and socialism seem to me to be a panic reaction by the Republican Party of what can happen when one party takes power and the opposition has no ability to affect anything. The problem I have with this is that (a) they put themselves in a deep minority by their own actions and (b) seem to be just digging themselves in deeper by the day as opposed to looking for ways to compromise.

I would like the Republican Party to be relevant. I do believe that checks and balances is important both in government itself, and politics. I also believe that its only a small, vocal minority in the Republican Party that truly believes acting like screeching, whining banshees and giving vent to "populist rage" - when half the turnout can't even decide why they are attending these tea parties - is the way to regain relevance.

[Mavericks]

It really comes down to the wealthiest 5% trying to convince the impressionable 35% that 60% of this country is radical and trying to take their money and liberties.

[LMPE]

If Eisenhower returned to the world, he would ask what happened to his political party.

[jeanrenoir]

The answer is simple: George Wallace's primary endorsement in Michigan in '68 by those "hard-working, you know, WHITE" Archie Bunkers and Joe the Plumbers who taught the Republicans how to take the Southern Strategy of a century of segregationists North in order to divide and conquer with "culture war." Too bad the Republicans were so stupid that they made this strategy irrelevant and destroyed themselves with the double whammy of the Iraq War and enabling their Wall St. pals in their Madoffing of America with sub-prime mortgages and derivatives. It's amazing how the threat of Depression trumps even stem-cell research, even in the minds of numbskulls like Archie and Joe.

[Jeep]

"Be afraid of terrorists­/taxes/gov­ernment/ga­ys/Obama/d­emocrats/e­tc/etc/etc " That sums up the gop's strategy. Fear and hatred, with Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin as the faces of the party. Good luck, I say. Megan McCain gets it, but she may be the only republican that does. Payback is a bitch ;-)

[tomasedison]

The secret is the republican party stands for nothing at all, except some devisive wedge issues.

[bryan43036]

I always think its funny when people that have no idea about a subject go into detail about the subjec, why get a republican to talk about republican problems when you can get a liberal

[Optimist]

First you have to find a Republican; kinda scarce these days.

[andycan]

LEARNING FROM ROVE

Axelrod, Obama's advisor, stole a page from the Republicans' book. Rove used to identify Dmeocrats with the socialist fringe. That scared electors who voted for Bush.

Now the Democrats do their best to identify the Republicans with the Limbaugh right-wing "know-nothing" fringe. It works. People realize that for now the right-wing is in control in the Republican party, which puts them in a minority. For now.

[lakat]

People say that it would be a shame if the Republican Party dissolved because we need at least a two party system but the truth is, one of them can't be rotten to the core. What we need is the Republican Party to fade away and a Progressive/Liberal Party be the opposition to the Democratic Party. The Dems have gone too far to the right for most of us "real" Democrats and we long for a Dennis Kucinich type of leader to really work for the people and protect us from corporations. Dems love that corporation money too much for me.

[anyoneoutthere]

Yes, that would be nice and reasonable. The problem though is that the arrangement you speak of is only possible if the right wing lunatic fringe does not claim more than 10% of the vote. As it is, the US parties are a fair reflection of the mentality of the electorate.

Education is the way out. Long term of course. There are no short term solutions.

[mgray80]

I think the majority of independents and more right leaning people who decided to give Obama a chance are having serious buyers remorse and are unlikely to reelect in 2012- we will see

[jazzman]

That's why Obama has a 69% approval rating, 3 points up over three weeks ago. Some buyers remorse.

[busybeez]

You are wrong. The Republicans are turning us off completely with how they are refusing to work with the president, and failing to offer sensible solutions to the financial crisis that they created. A government spending freeze is a joke in the middle of a financial crisis when nobody is spending money. Taking the populist-friendly position in the middle of a crisis is not leadership, it's just putting party first over country.
I cannot vote for a party that caters to the kooks of the party wearing teabags on their hats or claiming Obama is not citizen. Or believes that Palin should ever be near the power of the presidency. Republicans have pushed us further away.
Read the polls--your hopes of what is going on and the reality of how this country really feels about the Republicans just don't line up together. I cannot see myself voting Republican again ever if they don't start acting like statesmen instead of totalitarians who want to overthrow the government because they lost the election. They need a leader bad, and that leader needs to tell Limbaugh and Hannity that they have gone too far in attacking our new president during two wars and a financial crisis. We need to see patriotism from the party, not sour grapes!

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

Here's an Idea: When you offer up a opinion, try giving a reason.

[shamaniceconomist]

Supposing the Republicans found a way to get 50% of the conservatives and 50% of the independents who go out to vote -- neither of which seems to be within reach -- they would still lose in a landslide. To win, the Republicans have to get conservatives out of the Democratic camp in large numbers. So far, there is no plan to accomplish that.

[VA Lady2008]

Shamaniceconomist: Well said. I think a two party system is a good idea. Too bad we have one Party, the Democratic Party, and a repulsive religious/social movement incapable of offering ANY answers, or even intelligent suggestions.

There are quite a few fiscally conservative citizens who have abandonned the GOP as the party of deceit and distrotion. I--a fiscal, pay as you go, conservative but social progressive--was long ago given the boot.

What parades around wearing "tea bags" and pretending to be the GOP--or for that matter, even fiscal conservatives--are a bunch of social Neanderthals who want to take us back to what wasn't even for them the "Good Old Days" except in their imaginations.

They won't be content until the repeal the US Constitution in toto, but immediately Amendment I: Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition Freedom of Religion; Amendment IV (freedom from illegal search and seizure, requires probable cause); Amendment VI (right to a speedy trial.)

But wait, they ALREADY DID THAT, WHEN GEORGE BUSH AND HIS THUGS SUSPENDED THE CONSTITUTION.

I wonder what the heck they have in mind for an encore?

[BCubedReg]

Your jedi mind tricks won't work here.. go peddle your wares to your fellow mindless republicans

[wyldthings]

You know for people as educated as you are you are burying your heads in the sand. The reason Obama receives the high approval ratings he does is because of Independent and Republicans. I as a Republican am willing to give this President amble time to solve the financial crisis 1 to 2 years. On the security front he has won my respect for his embrace of past Presidents and understands that he and he alone is responseable for our security. So all the programs he told you he would end he has kept in place. Your mistake is the tax issue, this is an issue for any ethnic or racial make up. This is not about this President this is about average people realizing that the tax burden is being put on the middle or working class. When the new tax rates give the wealthy a 3% increase but the person making $125,000 gets an 11% increase thats not taxing the rich. When you raise beer tax, ciggarett tax, gas tax etc. Does that affect a person making 1,000,000 NO but it does disportionately affect the poor and working class. So do not make a mistake by trying to paint this as the fault of Hannity, Beck or any single person!!

[Weirdwriter]

Well, wyldthings, you had me until "the tax burden is being put on the middle or working class."

The point is, the middle/working classes have had the burden of making up for the wealthy folks' tax breaks during the last 8 years of Republican misrule. Their wages stagnated, their jobs disappeared overseas, their health care costs soared out of accessibility or bankrupted them, the "safety nets" collapsed, and their expenses got much much higher -- while the rich got much, much richer.

So much for Reaganomics and the "trickle-down" theory of enriching the rich to spread the wealth.

Meanwhile, the national debt rose to a record high, the economic system's house o' cards towered ever more unsteadily, two foreign wars helped drain our coffers, and our essential infrastructures -- from highways to schools -- crumbled and fell or limped along for lack of funding and political will.

President Obama has had less than four months to deal with all this. No one under the highest tax bracket is paying higher income taxes, and, in fact, there has been a modest tax cut down to the poorest folks. Gas may not be as elective an expense as liquor and tobacco, but I assure you lower-income folks have been bearing the burden of disproportionately higher payroll and sales taxes for years.

The fault of any single person? No.So don't try to blame a single person for not fixing things right away, to your satisfaction.

[wyldthings]

There you go again. As Ronald Reagan would say. I' m not blaming any specific party or Administration, unlike you. You must not read very well. I specifically said I do not blame Obama in any way shape or form. Of course through out time the working and middle class have always in every type of government borne the heaviest burden. Quit looking at it as a Republican and Democratic issue. I Know one thing for sure if I make $125,000 this year much more of my income will disappear to taxes and fee's before the wealthy man. And sir I'm not poor I'm working class so although I appreciate the tax break for the poor I'm talking about working class America. I don't know where you get your info but the new tax PROPOSAL the taxpayer making $1,000,000 a year would jump from 36% To 39%. However the taxpayer making $125,000 will jump from 28% to 39% and if you still can't see my point.Well

[greguva]

No one is being forced to buy beer or cigarettes - I don't, and I get along just fine.

[busybeez]

I do, but it's always been that way--Obama is hardly the first president to hike the "sin tax." Bush did it several times.

[TremoluxMan]

They will not change or adapt. They are convinced that rather than being out of touch with the mainstream, they were not conservative enough. What to do? Double down and go all in.

Rather than climb out of the hole they are in, their solution is to bore straight down through the center of the planet and out the other side to get out of the hole. Brilliant.

[Pyrum]

They weren't conservative enough, and embracing their traditional conservative roots would be an adaptation and a change.

[editorjuno]

Define "traditional conservatism."

[hegdehog]

It's really about honesty and substance. The Republicans lack both.

[Pyrum]

I agree, but I don't see any more honesty or substance in the democrat's camp than I do in the republican's.

[Weirdwriter]

So, you voted for Obama because...?

[returnofthejedi]

I hope all the Democrats or Independents that will be running against these people will have a lot of footage of what all of these events we have witnessed recently. I have noticed that the republican congressmen are not getting caught on camera at these tea-parties. They are also trying to say that there are people of all backgrounds at these hate rallys. No one is going to buy those lies exept the ones that are telling them! It's bad when you resort to lying to yourself!

[georgewetherill]

The independent thing has got you guys scared. Good, you need to be. There were to many people not to realize these were just middle class Americans. The little coverage the leftwing media gave it was sending attack dogs out to stir things up, maybe even to the point of it getting violent. I know this would have been the outcome you disered.

[redraspberry]

It's fun to watch the republican party screw itself into the ground and alienate more and more people every day.

I live in a rural farm county that has always been republican dominated and still is by count of political positions held. But the last election we had two weeks ago all the candidates were either progressive or independent. No republicans, no democrats.

[returnofthejedi]

What left wing media do you speak of? you people are robots that believe anything that you are told. Some disagrees with seceeding from the United Staes is not a Left wing crazy, Sir. Your ability to reson and define is compromised, that is if you ever had it to begin with!. What YOU are afraid of is having to live in a Nation that finally lives up to the claims of equal opportunity for all Americans. By the way the Civil War is over, the south lost. Have a nice day.

[BCubedReg]

No it does not.. Let's look at this in perspective. Even if there were 250,000 people nation-wide that participated in the tea parties (and I am not conceeding there were), that represents 0.083% of one percent of the nations population.

It merely shows that "you can fool some of the people all of the time"

[nancytheragingliberal]

As I have said on numerous occasions, I hope these nasty repubs. go back to their cages underground, put their chains back on, and stay there for eternity. That party has been an abomination for 200 hundred years and it is not about to change its ways. Palin is a fright; small minded, vindictive, hiding under the guise of religion, but repubs just love her and she is now auditioning for 2012. W. in a skirt, lipstick and Jimmy Choo heels. W. is smarter than Sarah, so how is that for a scary thought?

[Jeffrey Skarski]

You're statement that the Republican party has been an "abomination for 200 years" is false and unfair. Now, I agree with this article, but the only stance which has been consistent for the Republican Party since its inception (only 155 years ago, not 200,) has been "states rights," as opposed to Federalism.

Nowadays, State's rights are still brought up by Republicans, just as frantically as any of their other positions, but it is almost a footnote compared to their other platform positions. Certainly neither their economic policy nor social policy even relates to the debate between State's Rights and Federalism.

However, you had better know your history better than you seem to if you're going to start displaying your opinions on the "intarwebs." Lincoln was an Abolitionist (socially Liberal, even radical, for that time) and quite likely a Socialist (economically Liberal, even radical for ANY time). At the very least, he favored the interests of Labor over those of capital. As you can clearly see, there has been an utter shift of polarity in the party platforms since those days.

[flanardiente]

Well--yeah! They killed Lincoln and with him they killed the Republican Party as it was then constituted. Edwin Stanton and the so-called "Radical Republicans" treated the South as a conquered country and sold out to the corporate interests for money and power. It wasn't just John Wilkes Booth, ya know.

[TwilightZoneResident]

Jeffrey, welcome aboard. I am looking forward to seeing some of your other posts.

Just my thoughts

TZR

[ProgressiveVoice]

"the only stance which has been consistent for the Republican Party since its inception (only 155 years ago, not 200,) has been "states rights," as opposed to Federalism."

Since the Republican party and Lincoln hit the national stage at the same time, and Lincoln took the country to war rather than allow secession, my knee jerk reaction is to tell you that you are wrong.

However, you sound knowledgeable, or at least you write well, so maybe you ARE right. In which case, could you explain the inconsistency I laid out in my previous paragraph? Not kidding or being sarcastic - I would really like to know something about how a "State's Rights" president like Lincoln ended up fighting the Civil War.

[SonofLiberty1]

I'm shaking my head as I read these comments because the victories and defeats of the past become the seeds of new victories and defeats in the future.

I've been observing politcs for a while. No party is ever truly dead they do have resurrection believe it or not.

Many here, who are not Christian, are talking up "Gay Marriage"

The battle lines are already drawn. Many states have defined marriage as not gay and they have done it in their own constitutions.

Catholic & other Christian Churches will not go away as the concept of "Gay Marriage" is not a
Christian virtue but is totally against the Christian Church.

And this will be part of the way a new Republican Party or some other new party will come back.

[the steamer]

You think keeping teh gays from marrying is a sound strategy for national politics? It's just one issue. Marrying your party to that one issue would lead to another George Bush or Sarah Palin, that is to say, if the only thing that matters to your vote is one silly, silly issue, the leaders you would elect have no incentive to govern well, they just need to keep the gays from marrying.

[ariveria]

but it is not a republican issue.

the republican­/conservat­ives believe in limited government and maximizing individual freedom

the christian stance on gay marriage flyies in the face of that.

it is all big government and less personal freedom.

no way will any republican­/conservat­ive who believes in limted government and presonal freedom support that christian view

[BryanTheRegOps]

Are you serious?

Gay Marriage is one of the Republicans "bread and butter" issue. Remember Bush's speech on wanting to write a Amendment to define marriage.

You say tthey want to maximize individual freedom but the do the opposite. Who keep bring the issue up all the times, the conservatives.

[lakat]

To a Republican the biggest sin is sex even though they are the highest porn consumers of anyone, and honesty, ethics are just "guidelines" to be eschewed because the ends justify the means. The wealthy who run the Republican Party shout "Small Government" because they don't want to have to protect their workers and pay them well. It has nothing to do with individuals it's corporate welfare all the way.

[apingebrig]

I would observe a little closer.

The gay marriage issue can also be understood as an age issue - those over 60 overwhelmingly are against gay marriage, while those under 30 are overwhelmingly for it.

So actually as time passes, more and more people will support gay marriage.