The Scope of The Republican Deficit

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 14:12


Amidst all of the discussion about how the Republican Party is searching for a way out of the wilderness, the sheer scope of the Republican deficit is often missed.  Currently, Republicans face a far more severe electoral problem than Democrats faced four years ago.  Consider the following:

  • Republicans equally popular as Republican boogeymen: With a favorable rating hovering just on the south side of 40%, Republicans are currently about as favorable as most of their favorite boogeymen used to scare voters. Republicans are currently viewed about as favorably as legalizing marijuana, gay marriage, Communist China, and increasing the current level of immigration. All of these right-wing scare tactics--increasing immigration, legal drugs, gay marriage, Communist superpowers--hover around the same 40% favorable rating as Republicans themselves. Among voters under 45, Republicans lose pretty solidly to most, if not all, of these boogeyman. If you are only as popular as the ideas you try to scare voters with, and if long-term trends suggest that it won't be long before the boogeymen you use will actually be more popular than you are, then it is really, really hard to see a way back for your party.

  • Demographic trends point in the wrong direction for Republicans. This has been a favorite subject of mine for a while, as I wrote in Maybe It Is A Battle Of Civilizations, Towards a Pluralist Strategy, and The End of Bubba Dominance. The simple fact is that Democratic voting groups, mainly non-whites and non-Christians, but also union voters and the LGBT community--are actually growing in size. For example, when projected ethnic population growth (PDF), and is applied to current ethnic voting patterns, if the 2008 election had been held in 2020, Obama would have defeated McCain by 9.8%, a 2.5% increase from the 2008 margin of 7.3%. That doesn't even factor in what will inevitably be a large non-Christian and LGBT vote, two groups that vote for Democrats at nearly the same rate as non-whites. The point is that if Republican popularity stagnates among current demographic groups, overall Republican popularity will actually decline. They have to improve just to maintain their current level of unpopularity.

(more great anti-Republican numbers in the extended entry)

Chris Bowers :: The Scope of The Republican Deficit
  • Democratic advantage two to three times as large as any held by Republicans: Even in the darkest hours for Democrats, the period from 2001-2005, they never faced a popularity deficit like the one Republicans current face. Using long-term trends from Polling Report, you can see that Republicans currently trail Democrats in net favorability rating by two to three times the amount Democrats faced at their lowest point:

    NBC poll, Democratic Party net favorability edge on Republican Party, 1998-2009

    Gallup poll, Democratic Party net favorability edge on Republican Party, 1997-2008

    During this entire stretch, which runs back into the days of Monica Lewinsky, the Democratic Party never reached a double-digit net negative unfavorable rating. By contrast, Republicans have been in that territory almost continually for three and a half years. The same can be said for facing a twenty-point net favorable gap to the other party. While Democrats never fell behind by that much, Republicans have trailed by that amount almost continually for three and a half years.

I am not pointing this out to argue that there is no conceivable way for Republicans to close this gap. However, I do think it is safe to venture that there is no way Republicans can close the gap entirely either over the short term (say, by the end of 2010), or without a change in core message.

Can Republicans still win national elections by scaremongering on topics such as immigration, drugs, Communism, or gay marriage? Every day, the odds appear less and less likely. Can they win without a noticeably improved performance among non-whites and non-Christians? Again, the odds of pulling that off decline every day. Can they use the same strategy as Democrats-aka, don't be the governing party when the country is in the crapper--to find a path back to power? Perhaps, but Democrats were never as unpopular and discredited in the eyes of the American public as Republicans are now. If Democrats can't turn things around, voters won't think "OK, time to give the other guys a chance." Instead, it will be more like "wow, they both frakked it up."

Unless Republicans can find scarier boogeyman, unless Democrats really screw things up beyond even Bush administration levels, and unless Republicans find a way to start appealing to growing demographic groups, then they aren't going to find a way back to power. Eventually they will pull it off, as Democrats will not govern forever. However, I think the smart money is that they won't be able to succeed until 2016, or possibly even later.


Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The key part of your last paragraph... (4.00 / 3)
is "unless Republicans find a way to start appealing to growing demographic groups."  I tend to agree with your writing on this topic - R's are screwed because of how bad the do with non-whites.  Non-whites made up 26% of the population in the last election.  To put that in perspective, they made up 11% in 1992.  From a race-relations standpoint, the R's are still running the party like it is 1992.  They are proudly and loudly racist.  They will never win, regardless of how bad the Dems do in the coming years, because people will never vote for a party that dislikes them because they're not white.  It doesn't matter if they agree with the Rs on the economy, or foreign policy, or abortion, or gay rights, etc.  No racial minority person is going to vote for Bull Conner.  

I've been thinking of writing a diary about this because if you think about it, its really somewhat depressing.  After 40 years of policy-free elections where conservatives won largely because whites were convinced voting D meant voting against the interests of their race, we are now in a situation where racial minorities will never vote R because the party is viewed, quite deservedly, as the party of racists.  And of course, as Chris has pointed out, racial minorities are the new swing group - even if the traditional media hasn't caught onto this yet.  So we continue the streak of policy-free elections.  And I'm not as optimistic as Chris that this will change by 2016.  I think the Rs will be every bit, if not more, racist by 2016, and the country will be less white, and the Rs won't stand a chance in hell of winning regardless of what happens in the meantime (this is of course assuming nothing apocalyptic happens).  If you are a fan of democracy, and think that having two viable party's is a good thing then, again, this is depressing.  At least my team is in charge.  


Well they *are* trying to expand their outreach... (0.00 / 0)
Take a look....



REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Unfortunately (0.00 / 0)
Textbook democracy doesn't exist outside of textbooks.  Never has. Never will.  So what you're bitching about here is not just absent for the foreseeable future, but for all time.

That, at least, is how I would respond to a maximalist interpretation of what you've written.  A minimalist interpretation I might could go for--that it's really a good idea to have more or less competitive reality-based parties contending against one another, we don't look like that's in the cards for quite some time.  But even this has rarely been the case in America at the national level.  The lower down the totem pole you go, the more common it becomes, so that small localities often have a pretty good approximation.  But, then, often they do so within very narrow confines, too.

In short, I'd argue that there's something much more fruitful to worry about--and that's simply that we manage to secure good enough public policy that we (a) avoid destroying civilization (ie, global warming), (b) avoid slipping backwards completely into pre-modern levels of income polarisation and mass destitution, (c) improve people's lives on a global level sufficiently so that religious extremism doesn't lead to us back into decades- or centuries-long religious war and (d) substantially improve our governance systems anyway, despite the utopian nature of your seemingly modest hopes.

That is why I am working for a progressive future.  Because those goals, however hard--really hard--they may be to achieve, are neither impossible, nor merely idealized means to an end.  They are an end in themselves.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Could you tell my wife... (0.00 / 0)
...that my political views are utopian:)  Even though we share most of the same political views (a good thing in a marriage) she would probably call me cynical.  

Anyway, I certainly get your point, and I certainly didn't mean to suggest in my post that we would ever have (or have ever had) two viable (reality-based) parties where I would have a difficult time choosing in an election.  Nor is this any great particular hope of mine, although it would be nice if the Rs weren't racists, believed in science, and generally cared about the well-being of those in the bottom 95% of the tax bracket.  If I were to list hopes, they would be much more substantial than a second viable political party and they would likely include the points you list.  

The main point that I was trying to make is that I see no way the Rs win anytime soon (by which I mean decades).  I think Chris' 2016 is way too optimistic.  I think it will take close to twenty years for them to realize that racism is costing them elections, and then I think it will take another couple decades before minorities trust them again.  Of course, I'm not predicting 40 straight years of D Presidents.  There could be situations where the left splits with a progressive independent candidate.  Nixonian corruption could occur, giving the Rs a one-term President.  But, for the next forty years or so I think we have Dem Presidents by and large.  And I also think policy will have nothing to do with this run - it will be due to the view of minorities towards the Rs.  It would be much better if the upcoming Dem run were due to policy because I think it would be easier to make headway on some of the issues you list.  But the Dems will soon learn that their hold on power is not due to progressive governance, but rather it is due to a racist R party.  

Anyway, I'm just babbling now.  Didn't mean to seem simple in my post, and I agree with what you say.  


[ Parent ]
Two parties (4.00 / 2)

 We'll have two viable parties even if the Republicans completely implode (which they won't -- they represent money and property, and will always have that trough to feast upon).

 It'll be the Howard Dean wing of the Democratic Party against the Harold Ford wing.

 And that's an Overton Window shift I can believe in. To have a fully-funded, mainstream, part-of-the-everyday-discussion PROGRESSIVE Democratic Party is almost unprecedented in our history.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
I'll be more than happy… (0.00 / 0)
...to dance on the GOP grave when the forces working against progressives--media-wise and financially (are wealth imbalances going away any time soon?)--become truly ineffectual. Jon Stewart has been portraying the business networks as hapless, but the fact is that every one of them is still up, running and broadcasting pro-business, pro-corporate misinformation. I'm not sure their impact can be measured accurately in such extraordinary times. Not trying to be a buzzkill, but...

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

Business propaganda (4.00 / 2)
Businesses did the same thing in the early and mid 30s and got nowhere.  In fact, FDR was puzzled circa 1934 that businesses and newspapers put out so much energy opposing him.

It is more likely that GE will sell its TV and cable networks than that CNBC will push the public as a whole into believing this crap.  


[ Parent ]
Yeah, but the difference was in the 30's... (4.00 / 1)
...that a lot of folk in America literally couldn't read.  In the 40's they had to set up remedial education programs for people wanting to enlist, 'cos so many failed the basic reading test.

TV is a lot more powerful that newspapers or even radio or newsreels of the day....

And finally, people were ready for a revolution, and there was a vibrant socialist economy across the pond setting an example...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
One thing I think is overlooked, though… (0.00 / 0)
...is how much faith the middle class had begun to have in the markets because they had a little money invested there.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

[ Parent ]
Media (0.00 / 0)
Well, 4 years ago there was pretty much zero progressive media out there.  Now we have Olbermann and Maddow, and the internet is much stronger too.  Things are trending our way.  

Obviously I don't know, but I doubt the Jim Cramers of the world influence very many voters nowadays.


[ Parent ]
Republican deficit (0.00 / 0)
Sorry but you are still too hostile to the working class, they could still be radical on economic and fiscal questions.  And as for women, homosexuals, and minorities, they could still be more conservative on such questions, so their future dominance, if and when it comes, may actually make this country more conservative on such issues, such as redistribution of wealth and property in this country.

And the Republicans... (4.00 / 2)

 ...have done nothing but roll out bright red carpets for the working class, fighting for them every step of the way. Right.

 The Democrats HAVE largely neglected the working class as well, for sure -- that's one of the many bad legacies of DLCism. But the pendulum's finally starting to swing back -- and if EFCA gets passed, it's going to swing back HARD.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Republicans (0.00 / 0)
Also, about that "vibrant socialist economy accross the pond..."

You mean Stalinist Russia?


sell&buy share (0.00 / 0)
According to one account, this notion was originally created in Europe in the 1960s.[4] A ski resort developer (Hapimag) in the French Alps marketed his resort by encouraging guests to "stop renting a room" and instead "buy the hotel". Subsequent success followed, and the concept was quickly embraced by developers worldwide, boosting sales of surplus condominium units at a time when the resort industry was depressed

-----------------
tom
-----------------
hawaii drug rehab-hawaii drug rehab


should be interesting... (0.00 / 0)
to see how the GOP rebrands itself. It makes a lot of sense for them to end up with similar positions like the Blue Dogs have now. It would put stress on the democratic caucus from going too far to the left while keeping their party somewhat viable.

Then again I wouldn't put it past them to go even more loony. Which of course would be good for us.

Anyhow, extrapolating data can be fun but I'm not sure it isn't an exercise in futility.


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search