The Future of the Republican Party

Remove all ads!

The Republican Party is alive and thriving in the deep south, and it's doing pretty well in the Great Plains as well. They even retained their majority in the House of Representatives. And yet, in a struggling economy, with relatively high unemployment, they were unable to take back the presidency. While it's certainly true that Romney was not a great candidate to begin with, I think the problem that the Republican party has on a national level goes deeper than that.

Here's a few statistics about those that voted on Tuesday: Over 90% of the people who cast a vote for Romney were white. Compare that to Obama's figure of 57%. Romney won the white vote by a wide margin. The age group among white voters where Romney didn't have a majority was in the under 30 group, which voted Obama at an even 60%.

It's his numbers among minorities that were terrible. Obama won 93% of the African American vote. (And while that's high, even in past years, Democrats typically get north of 85% of the African American vote.) So that alone wasn't the reason. Asian Americans also voted for Obama 73% of the time. But they represent just 4% of the population, and so that's not the reason Romney lost either. The big difference we saw in 2008 and 2012 was among Latino voters - 71% this election, and 70% in 2008 voted for Obama. And I think that is the biggest problem for the Republicans going forward.

Bush didn't do too bad among Latinos. While he didn't win a majority of them in either term, be did break the 40% mark both times. But the Republican stance on immigration I think has turned a lot of Lations away from the party. The most obvious example is in Arizona, where even the legal Latinos have a major issue with. (And just to point out, it's not the illegal immigrants who are swinging the vote, as they can't vote. The whole idea behind being an illegal immigrant is to stay off the grid. Attempting to get registered to vote is certainly not the way to make that happen.)

When you add up the African American, Latino, and Asian American percentage of those that voted on Tuesday, you get 29%. (The percentage they represent among the general population is significantly higher than that, but they turn out to vote much less than the white population.) And you don't need a me to tell you that that number has grown larger in every single presidential election for the last 40 years. The typical increase is about 2% each election. So my question regarding the future of the Republican party is actually pretty simple: What do they need to do to expand the tent, particularly among minorities? This election showed pretty clearly that you can't win national elections simply by getting all the angry middle aged white people to vote for you. They pretty much maxed out that demographic. And I think the question can even be simplified to what do they need to do to win more of the Latino vote?

New Mexico stands as a stark example. That state was reliably Republican for a long time, but changes in demographics have caused it to pretty much be out of reach for Republicans this year. Similar demographic changes have taken place in Nevada, and that too has become a reliably blue state. It certainly looks like Colorado is heading in that direction. Obama also won Florida because of the Latino vote. (Cuban Americans are fairly reliably Republican, but they now represent a minority of Latinos in Florida. Only about a quarter of Latinos in Florida are of Cuban descent.) Finally the increase in Latinos in California changed it from a lean Democrat state to a strong Democrat state. (I doubt a Republican from California could win his home state in a national election held today.)

As if all of this wasn't bad enough, there are more dominos to fall. There isn't a precise percentage you need to get to in terms of Latinos, because it depends on how Republican the state was to begin with. States like Nevada and Colorado were only lean Republican, so a Latino population of around 20% is sufficient. New Mexico was pretty hard cord Republican though, and they didn't flip until the Latino population reached 40%. But here's a number that I bet sends shivers down the RNC's spine: the Latino population in Arizona and Texas is just a hair over 35%. If we use New Mexico as the model here, in 2016 these states will be to Democrats what Wisconsin and Iowa were to Republicans this year: likely just out of reach. But by 2020, both are in play.

Of course, that assumes nothing changes in the Republican platform. Which is why I'm guessing it has to. The party needs to get more support from minority populations. If Arizona and (especially) Texas flip to blue, there is no winning electoral map for a Republican president.

 

Well, I think there was a lot of talk on this topic after the 2008 elections, yet 2010 was supposedly a solid year for the GOP. I imagine they aren't going anywhere. However, the results this year aren't that great for them.

Something that is quite interesting in the US, compared to most European systems, is that there is a very solid two-party system - so by necessity, the parties tend to be inclusive "big top" groups. This likely creates a big challenge for the party leadership, as they need to manage all those different groups with often diverging views and interests - who are all trying to get a bigger part of their ideology on the party's agenda. The problem is, the more one of these groups gains dominance and sets the agenda, the smaller the "big top" gets and the more other groups feel left out. I think Bush (and more likely, the party leadership at the time) was better able to project an inclusive vision than Mitt Romney.

I think it had a lot to do with Mr. Romney's campaign, though. I do not think he ran a very good campaign, or for that matter was an incredible public figure. I think that had the GOP put a better candidate, the election might have turned out quite different. The question is... why didn't it?

 

Well, there are a couple of reasons for the difference in 2010. First of all, there wasn't a presidential election in 2010. Turnout is always considerably lower in the off years, and so the most reliable voters still come out in force, but there are a lot of people that just don't vote when the president isn't on the ballot. All of the minority groups are less reliable voters than the white population, so there was a distinct enthusiasm gap. Also, don't forget that in the fall of 2010, the economy was still really lousy, and there was a "throw the bums out" mentality of the electorate (the Democrats lost their majority in the House that year).

Look at the options they had. Who would have done better than Romney? Donald Trump? Rick Santorum? Rick Perry? Newt Gingrich? I mean, it's not exactly like they had a great list of people to pick from. If anything, I'd guess that of the options presented, they actually picked the most electable person. I can't imagine that if they had gone for one of the other picks that things would have turned out better.

Now on the campaign side of things, I tend to agree. Even though Romney had more money to spend than Obama, he didn't really try and expand the map until the final couple weeks of the campaign. He had a major advertising purchase in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota the last two weeks of the campaign, but by that time most voters had already made up their minds. He essentially allowed the Obama campaign to define the battleground states, and predictably that's not a good idea. What Romney was left with was a set of just a few battleground states, in which he needed to carry nearly all of them to pull off a victory. (And it's not like he came close - the big battlegrounds were Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Iowa and Colorado, and Romney lost them all.)

 

Most of what I said on this same topic back in 2008 still stands.

If what I'm seeing from most corners of the right holds, they've learned absolutely nothing from the last two elections and will be doomed unless they jettison the demagogues in talk radio, blogs and Fox News who just lie to them and tell them what they want to hear all the time, never confronting facts, hard data or reality on much of anything. The number of conservatives who were utterly blindsided by the result – as they were assured by their non-lamestream media news outlets that Obama was headed for a Jimmy Carteresque trouncing – is the most surprising thing of all to me. I knew the conservative media alternate reality problem was bad, but – man. Watching Fox News on election night was a train wreck.

The consensus I'm hearing – from conservative blogs and my many Romney-supporting Facebook friends – is pretty universal. "Next time, we need to run a REAL conservative." Yes, double-down on a hard-core tea party wingnut next time. That's the magic bullet. Voters were convinced Mitt Romney was TOO liberal, and THAT'S why he didn't beat the Kenyan socialist muslim freedom destroying dictator Obama by the 300+ electoral vote "landslide" they were assured was coming from Dick Morris, George Will, Sean Hannity and a dozen other fantasy-peddling dickscrapes.

As much as that will frustrate me, I don't see any other alternative. Republicans need to elect the wingiest of wingnuts in 2016 – who will get crushed, especially if full economic recovery economists are predicting comes through – before they'll realize they need to join the real world. We need an actual, serious, pragmatic, reality-based conservative movement in this country for our democracy to function in the best possible manner the founders intended. That push and pull of liberal vs. conservative ideas - of progress vs. tradition - is what I LOVE about this country. But as long as we have people elected to powerful positions in government argue with a straight face that global warming isn't real, tax cuts generate revenue, the earth is only a few thousand years old and all the other time wasting, utterly non-sensicle articles of faith among conservatives, we'll continue to be held back from making actual, meaningful progress as a society. Other countries are kicking our ass in so many ways, it's disgraceful. And for what? Birth certificates?

 

We seem to have this discussion every election. Just as I read that "when the voters realize they can vote themselves the treasury" garbage every time the democrats get some victory (as if republicans don't vote their wallet). I read this election was (hopefully) the last election with the strategy to get the white male to vote in a president -- it's just not going to happen in the future. It was a gamble and it failed. I really don't think conservatives were blindsided by the loss; the main reason the pickings from the republican candidate pool were so thin was that virtually no one thought Obama could lose (except my Mormon friends and family who will now describe the Romney loss as another example of persecution ... whatever). The top players were not going to run until 2016. The intelligent members of the republican party (no comments from the panut gallery here) recognize this and are simply waiting until the next election. That of course means the ruling elite in the party believe that nothing is really wrong and so there will be no major changes.

That said, I think the republican party needs to do the following to remain viable:

1. Stick to the "build the economy by promoting business" schtick.
2. Become champions of reducing debt and balancing the budget.
3. Stop catering to the far right lunatics. Remove abortion as a party platform item. Remove gay marriage as a party platform item. I think both parties should allow individual candidates to have a stance on these issues but it should not be part of the party platform.
4. Embrace immigration reform and work to provide a means to incorporate non-violent illegal immigrants into society.
5. Give me a billion dollars as consultant (according to Obama in 2008 election, a billion was only chum change anyway) -- if I'm dreaming I may as well dream big.

 

Although I do have to guiltily admit enjoying the whole Karl Rove refusing to accept reality thing live on air. If you haven't seen the Jon Stewart clip, be sure to check it out.

The one thing that bugs me that I'm hearing today - most notably from Barbour, but others as well, is that Obama's "bromance" with Chris Christie won him the election. Or, to put it as bluntly as Barbour did - "Sandy saved the Obama presidency." That type of intellectual dishonesty is infuriating. Most states have early voting, where you are allowed to mail in your ballot weeks before the actual election. Many of these ballots were cast BEFORE Sandy hit and they saw Obama's response to it. The percentage of people voting for Obama in early voting were actually HIGHER than those who showed up on election day, which is the exact opposite of what you'd expect if he was exceptionally helped by Sandy. (And I can't resist the snarky comment - Obama must have figured out it's a good idea to show up in person right after the hurricane, rather than do a fly-by 3 days later.)

There is some truth to that. It's hard to beat an incumbent running for re-election to begin with, and as a result you get opposition in the form of Mitt Romney this year, and John Kerry in 2004. However, I'm not sure how sensible that is in practice. If you don't run your best candidates, and you then go on to lose, it seems like it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Yes, it's harder when you're up against an incumbent, but I'm not sure running a sacrificial lamb against him is any type of strategy either. Given how close this election was, and how close the 2004 election was, running a higher quality candidate who could have squeezed out another 1% or 2% of the vote would have made all the difference.

I know you said no comments from the peanut gallery, and I hope my comment will not be interpreted as such. But I have to ask: If they are in fact intelligent, then what would prevent them from coming to the same conclusion you have? I've always respected you opinion T2. I view your political inclinations as moderately conservative - something that is rather rare these days. I actually think that Republicans would be in stronger positions in many ways if it wasn't for some of the people who get picked in Republican primaries. It never fails that the most popular candidate in the primaries (because the one furthest to the right is often picked) is the least likely one to succeed in a general election). You can see this and take a pragmatic approach - many others do not.

 

Thank-you Aldeth. I appreciate the compliment -- I've got to admit that I wasn't so pragmatic or open minded when I first got here but you and others (Drew, Chandos, etc.) have gotten me to see from multiple points of view.

If ten people view the same set of data we get ten different analysis of the data. The two statements were actually two lines of thought -- one, that all the more intelligent republicans realized early they had very little chance to win and are waiting for 2016. The second statement was more defeatist -- I think that, because they didn't think they would win (and the self-fulfilling prophecy came true) the elite running the party (who may or may not be intelligent) will think nothing is wrong. They will interpret the data in whatever way they want, drawing the ultimate conclusion that they came closer than expected so the party is awesome and will do just fine next time.

And they couldn't be more wrong.

The republican party is drawing further right as the moderates draw further left. So when they cater to win the primary they invariably push the moderates away -- then the candidate tries to win back the moderates only to look indecisive on the issues. The republican party has also managed to alienate the majority of women and minorities. Their voting base, white male, is no longer a true majority and will never carry another election. Sadly, I don't think the party is going to come to grips with that (although some do realize it).

 

I'm thinking more in terms of the people who didn't run in the primaries, actually. Jeb Bush's name has been thrown around for a while, but he didn't try. Maybe it's still a bad time to run as a Bush, but I think the 4 years of Obama have removed much of that stain. I think the name of Bobby Jindal was also mentioned, and he was initially touted as a rising star, but he instead focused on re-election as a governor.I think I read about another GOP governor, Mitch Daniels. Really, wasn't there anyone who could have had more appeal than Romney, or did they all think they couldn't get past the primaries?

Was this really perceived as a very hard election for Republicans? By 2011 Obama didn't seem incredibly popular, the economy hadn't recovered (well, I'd say it couldn't have, but discontent isn't always logical), unemployment and deficits were high, and Obama hadn't been able to keep up with many of his promises, and the novelty had worn off*. Wouldn't those factors point to at least even playing field?

*: I'm not saying novelty was a big factor, but imo it was there. He had the political version of a Cinderella story - a biracial kid from a single-parent household going to Harvard, becoming a senator and running for president. That is a powerful narrative, and a case study in the American Dream as far as I understand it.

 

But I think you are like most people - willing to modify your views as more information becomes available. Romney looked indecisive because he was apparently chaging his mind on a whole lot of issues within a period of a few weeks. Holding a position on an issue just for the sake of holding it, even if information contradictory to your opinion comes along, isn't the sign of decisive leadership - it's the sign of being obstinant.

Well, none of those people decided to run, for whatever reason. Perhaps they thought they couldn't win the primary, or maybe not win the general election, but whatever the cause they weren't options for the voters. I was pointing out that of the people who did decide to run, Mitt Romney was likely to most solid choice out of those who weren't a particularly solid bunch.

If the names you listed, Jeb Bush is the most likely. Bobby Jindal always comes across as wimpy, and generally not overly charismatic. I don't know how much national appeal Mitch Daniels has, but probably has more of the characteristic conservative bona fides to run on. Others to consider: Marco Rubio (he's from Florida, and that alone may flip the state), and Chris Christie (who is truly a moderate and would fare very well in a general election IF he could survive the primary).

 

A secondary thought has occurred to me: Republicans are in a bit of a Catch 22 with the Latino vote. Obviously, if they refuse to compromise on some type of immigration reform, their standing among Latinos will likely become worse. However, even if they do compromise, they probably would not see any short term benefit.

If the deal gets done, the credit for it will go to the Democrats. But the deal would also place many Latinos on the path to citizenship, meaning they would be able to vote. Since these voters are likely to be more sympathetic to the Democratic party, it worsens the Republican position in terms of getting re-elected. it's a real damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for Republicans. It's for this reason alone that it may be hard to move Republican opinion towards immigration reform - it looks like they're hosed either way.

 

It's going to take a while for the Republican party to dig itself out of the hole it's in with Latino voters. One grand immigration bill or one token Latino candidate isn't going to do it. It's going to take several election cycles of consistent, sincere, and comprehensive change of positioning before they'll begin to make significant headway.

They've invested far too many years and dollars into the "scare the hell out of the old white people" strategy. It's too big, too many moving parts, and too many conservative voters are far too invested in that worldview for the ship to be righted quickly. They bet big on having the Limbaughs and Levins terrify retirees into voting Republican, and for obvious reasons, it's a losing strategy long-term. They're old - many Latinos are young. They know full well how they've been demonized by the right over the last two decades, and wouldn't you know it, demonized people tend not to forgive and forget their demonizers overnight.

 

Neither am I Latino, but I've never found it that elusive. If you're really interested, I'd start with the Arizona immigration law. I realize that when we discussed it a while back several people here saw nothing at all wrong with it, but the Latino community saw it very differently. I have Latino friends who were born here in Texas who wouldn't even attend a design conference with me because it was in Phoenix, and they didn't want to contribute to the economy of a state with such laws on the books. The rhetoric espoused by opponents of amnesty and the Dream Act alone are pretty terrible and easily found online. But that's just recently. The old "they turk er jerbs!" stuff goes back a while, and fear of scary Mexicans jumping the border fence to rob you and rape your daughter and drain the welfare coffers has been a staple of conservative talk radio since the 80's.

One Limbaugh quote that stuck out to me from a while back is "Let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do — let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.” He said that one back in the 90's but, surprisingly, people tend not to forget stuff like that.

 

Are you serious? Wow, you must not know very many Latinos. Shocking for a Californian.

The Latinos I know come from big, extended families. Pretty much all of them. They all have a friend or family member who is trying to come to the U.S., or who is here illegally but breaking no laws and contributing to the economy through taxes, usually desperate to build a better life for their families. They identify culturally with these "foreigners" for obvious reasons. The expression "you mess with one bean, you get the whole burrito" is, I will be the first to admit, pretty racist. Still, apropos. Conservatives who fight tooth and nail to prevent harmless illegal immigrants from obtaining a path to citizenship while gleefully advancing every negative stereotype about Mexicans are making enemies of the legal immigrants and natural-born citizens who are their relatives, friends and co-workers.

You can't on the one hand breathe fire about the lazy, criminal, smelly, drug dealing illegal Mexicans, and on the other hand expect the non-illegal Mexicans to believe you think the world of them just because they're citizens. It doesn't work that way.

 

That's how it works with everyone, though. Everyone treats individuals as individuals, even most racists. One of my Dad's good friends is a huge racist who drops the N word every other word, yet whenever he encounters a black person in everyday life, he's perfectly cordial. I'm not inferring anything on you here, BTA - just making the point that everyone likes to think of themselves as open minded and respectful to individual people, even while believing entire swaths of their peers are a menace. That's where we get charming expressions like "well he/she is one of the good ones" or "I suppose they're not ALL bad, just look at so-and-so."

You personally may not paint with a broad brush, and you should be commended for it. But much of the modern conservative movement today does - especially the most vocal corners. They don't distinguish between law-abiding, harmless, tax-paying immigrants (or their children) who happen to be undocumented, and the lazy welfare moochers or the cartel gangs who wreak havoc on the border towns. To them they're all part of the same big bad illegal Mexican scourge. And you can't tell someone is illegal by looking at them, so we're left with another identifier. Latinos from all stripes hear that and think it's ugly, and racist, and intellectually insulting. It's no surprise the Democrats are a refreshing alternative. Of course, Republicans insist this is only because Democrats give them "free stuff" to sit home and be lazy, and hence secure their vote through the dole. Another perfect illustration of the Republican party's tonedeafness on the issue.

I honestly don't think it requires being a Latino or being besties with one to see any of that. But to each his own.

 

The problem here is – "Illegals" has come to be a substitute for "Mexican," like it or not. When someone rants and raves about "illegals," you know as well as I do they aren't talking about Torontoans who've been here too long. And it certainly isn't just about their citizenship status. All I'm saying is, this is not lost on the vast majority of Latinos in America, citizen or not.