The End Of A Republican Party

calamity · Aug 28, 2016

Interesting eulogy or wishful thinking?

“My general sense, looking at this election, is that what we’re witnessing here is the end of something much more than the beginning of something,” Yuval Levin, editor of the conservative policy journal National Affairs, told me recently...

Somewhere in recent years, the GOP’s engagement with modern America and how to best project those values into a nation of 320 million people became dysfunctional. As the country has diversified, the party has remained monochromatic, has grayed, and rather than allowing some birch-like give on shifting cultural norms, has become an unbending oak of ideological purity. The GOP now finds itself lacking an intimate’s ability to criticize productively, given its demographic and cultural divergence from the majority of the country.

Most prominently, as has been said time and again, it is a party of breathtaking whiteness.
The End Of A Republican Party | FiveThirtyEight

Buh bye backwards party...don't let the door hit ya.

calamity · Aug 28, 2016

This probably sums up the reason behind the exodus. I know that it's one of the main reasons why, as much as I may agree with some GOP issues, voting for them gets harder and harder every year.

“This isn’t the most artful way to say it, but it’s like, where do you go when the only people who seem to agree with you on taxes hate black people?” Howe laughed ruefully. “I think what you do is you say, ‘Well, I may lose but I can’t align myself with them.’”

...

“There are some things that I don’t have core values about, that I can be negotiable on, compromise on. But then there are other things that I can’t budge on,” he said. “I think I thought I had to budge on some things: ‘Yeah, this guy talking to me right now just said he agrees with my taxes and also we need to get that Kenyan out of office.’ Why did I stand there and say, ‘Yeah’? You know? I shouldn’t have done that. I should’ve said, ‘Wait, what? No, that’s stupid. You’re stupid. Don’t be stupid.’”

KevinKohler · Aug 28, 2016

It's strange that my support of Trump has yielded the exact result I wanted it to....things just don't tend to pan out like that for me.

So the real question is, what's going to replace it? I'm pulling for the libertarians.

SDET · Aug 28, 2016

calamity said:
Interesting eulogy or wishful thinking?

Buh bye backwards party...don't let the door hit ya.

You like the idea of a one party state do ya?

Gaea · Aug 28, 2016

I would argue that the Republican's increasing share of 65+ voters is directly responsible for the increasing share of the non-college educated voters.

After all, college degrees were far less prevalent 50 years ago. In 1960, only 10% of the population aged 25-64 had a college degree. Today, it's over 30%.

RetiredUSN · Aug 28, 2016

calamity said:
Interesting eulogy or wishful thinking?

Buh bye backwards party...don't let the door hit ya.

Today's Democrat party could have the same demise within a couple years, as it only takes a few screw ups to change the national opinion.

But.... have fun riding your happy pony for now.

calamity · Aug 28, 2016

SDET said:
You like the idea of a one party state do ya?

Two parties are a good thing. But...uh, certainly not if one of them is some white nationalist party of old men.

Maybe we will not have to worry about it for much longer.

The prospect that the GOP leaders wouldn’t even be able to agree on why Trump — arguably the worst crisis the modern party has experienced — was even a crisis to begin with, seemed to say it all.

“There is no happy ending to this story,” she said.

Fishking · Aug 28, 2016

calamity said:
Interesting eulogy or wishful thinking?

Buh bye backwards party...don't let the door hit ya.

There isn't a huge spread between the parties as both of their affiliations are dropping. I predict a big drop in Democratic membership coming up after these elections.

calamity · Aug 28, 2016

Fishking said:
There isn't a huge spread between the parties as both of their affiliations are dropping. I predict a big drop in Democratic membership coming up after these elections.

I see the exact opposite, actually.

Fishking · Aug 28, 2016

calamity said:
I see the exact opposite, actually.

I don't. I think Trump is keeping their numbers floating. Once he goes away the boogie man won't be able to be used to coerce people into staying.

calamity · Aug 28, 2016

Fishking said:
I don't. I think Trump is keeping their numbers floating. Once he goes away the boogie man won't be able to be used to coerce people into staying.

lol...the GOP has several boogiemen to replace him with. Ted Cruz being next in line.

The GOP is backing various dying agendas: white power, religious power, small government, low taxes for the rich, coal, guns, ant-gay, anti-abortion etc. All those are losing issues among the younger generation. Good luck with that.

I'll be very surprised if the GOP outlives me.

Perotista · Aug 28, 2016

calamity said:
Interesting eulogy or wishful thinking?

Buh bye backwards party...don't let the door hit ya.

When Pew Research and Gallup began to kept track of party affiliation back in 1936 the Democratic party has always had the bigger base. There has been times when those who affiliated or identified with the Democratic Party has been over 50%. 1936, 1940, 1961, 1975 the Democratic Party made up 51% of the electorate with a high water mark of 52% in 1964. By contrast the Republican high water mark of 32% in 1985 during Reagan. But by that year the Democrats had fallen to 34% and has maintained their party identification/affiliation between 31-34% of the electorate to this day.

The Republicans have been as low as 21% in 1975, 77 and 1979. By 1993 the Republicans fell to 27% of the electorate and has been around that percentage to this day. So what you had were two different eras, pre-Reagan where the Democrats averaged a 46-28 advantage and post-Reagan where that advance dropped to 33-28. This can be seen in the Democrats having control of the House of Representatives for 56 of 60 years beginning in 1933 and 40 straight years beginning in 1955. The recent switching of the House in 1994, 2006 and 2010 was very rare in our history since 1932.

Are we headed back to one party dominance? I think it is hard to say. Independents numbered only 18% in 1936 and now has increased to 40%. So those the democratic Party lost, didn't become Republicans, they became independents or their decedents did.

Of particular interest is back in 1960 Democrats out numbered Republicans 46-29% and yet Nixon barely lost the presidential election by 110,000 votes. Ford in 1976 also barely lost to Carter when Democrats outnumbered Republicans 46-28. Reagan won in 1980 with Democrats at 45% and Republicans at 29%. Obama won in 2012 when democrats outnumber Republican 33-25. So candidates matter.

Trump is a candidate no one likes outside of his avid supporters, the same can be said of Clinton. Clinton does have the advantage of having the larger base vote, 31-27 over Republicans and Trump. According to RCP averages Clinton leads Trump 42-38.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Both Clinton and Trump are drawing 11 percentage points above their party base. Which means independents are not flocking into either camp. In fact over half of all independents dislike or view both Trump and Hillary Clinton in a negative light, 54% to be exact. At least according to Gallup. Both major parties are also view in a negative light by over half of all America which explains the rise in independents. Neither party like their candidate is liked. But the Democrats are disliked by less than the Republican Party.

So the ultimate question is are we headed back to where the parties stood pre-Reagan? Where the Democrats have a 10 to sometimes 20 point advantage over the GOP? I think it is too early to tell. What may happen since both candidates and parties are so disliked by most Americans, independents continue to grow. Sure the Republican Party may drop back into the low 20's, but the democratic Party may also drop into the high 20's.

so much depends on the candidates. Four years after the Republican Party hit their record low of 21% they elected Ronald Reagan as president and captured the senate. It is all about candidates.

calamity · Aug 28, 2016

Perotista said:
When Pew Research and Gallup began to kept track of party affiliation back in 1936 the Democratic party has always had the bigger base. There has been times when those who affiliated or identified with the Democratic Party has been over 50%. 1936, 1940, 1961, 1975 the Democratic Party made up 51% of the electorate with a high water mark of 52% in 1964. By contrast the Republican high water mark of 32% in 1985 during Reagan. But by that year the Democrats had fallen to 34% and has maintained their party identification/affiliation between 31-34% of the electorate to this day.

The Republicans have been as low as 21% in 1975, 77 and 1979. By 1993 the Republicans fell to 27% of the electorate and has been around that percentage to this day. So what you had were two different eras, pre-Reagan where the Democrats averaged a 46-28 advantage and post-Reagan where that advance dropped to 33-28. This can be seen in the Democrats having control of the House of Representatives for 56 of 60 years beginning in 1933 and 40 straight years beginning in 1955. The recent switching of the House in 1994, 2006 and 2010 was very rare in our history since 1932.

Are we headed back to one party dominance? I think it is hard to say. Independents numbered only 18% in 1936 and now has increased to 40%. So those the democratic Party lost, didn't become Republicans, they became independents or their decedents did.

Of particular interest is back in 1960 Democrats out numbered Republicans 46-29% and yet Nixon barely lost the presidential election by 110,000 votes. Ford in 1976 also barely lost to Carter when Democrats outnumbered Republicans 46-28. Reagan won in 1980 with Democrats at 45% and Republicans at 29%. Obama won in 2012 when democrats outnumber Republican 33-25. So candidates matter.

Trump is a candidate no one likes outside of his avid supporters, the same can be said of Clinton. Clinton does have the advantage of having the larger base vote, 31-27 over Republicans and Trump. According to RCP averages Clinton leads Trump 42-38.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Both Clinton and Trump are drawing 11 percentage points above their party base. Which means independents are not flocking into either camp. In fact over half of all independents dislike or view both Trump and Hillary Clinton in a negative light, 54% to be exact. At least according to Gallup. Both major parties are also view in a negative light by over half of all America which explains the rise in independents. Neither party like their candidate is liked. But the Democrats are disliked by less than the Republican Party.

So the ultimate question is are we headed back to where the parties stood pre-Reagan? Where the Democrats have a 10 to sometimes 20 point advantage over the GOP? I think it is too early to tell. What may happen since both candidates and parties are so disliked by most Americans, independents continue to grow. Sure the Republican Party may drop back into the low 20's, but the democratic Party may also drop into the high 20's.

so much depends on the candidates. Four years after the Republican Party hit their record low of 21% they elected Ronald Reagan as president and captured the senate. It is all about candidates.

I agree. Had the GOP nominated Kasich, and allowed him to run on his core message, I suspect we would have been talking about the end of the Democrats, at least as we know them today: The Clinton Party.

But, since he only received 10% of his party's vote--tops--I have to conclude that the GOP is out to commit suicide by charging up the Hill of the Lost Cause. Why they did that baffles me to no end. I would have rather focused on winning. Kasich Rubio 2016 would have been a winning ticket.

Perotista · Aug 28, 2016

calamity said:
I agree. Had the GOP nominated Kasich, and allowed him to run on his core message, I suspect we would have been talking about the end of the Democrats, at least as we know them today: The Clinton Party.

But, since he only received 10% of his party's vote--tops--I have to conclude that the GOP is out to commit suicide by charging up the Hill of the Lost Cause. Why they did that baffles me to no end. I would have rather focused on winning. Kasich Rubio 2016 would have been a winning ticket.

I agree. You had a minority, 40% of Republicans ended up voting for Trump who were more interested in sending a message, making a statement to the Republican elected officials, to their party leaders than winning an election in November. I do think it is dawning on them now exactly what they have caused, the election of Hillary Clinton as president.

They may now be realizing that, but they are still in self denial. They're blaming it on the media, blaming it on the never Trumpers, blaming it on anyone and everything except those who caused this.

I've been around a long time. The demise of the Republican Party was suppose to happen in 1965 after Goldwater and 3 years later Nixon was elected president. Once again after Watergate, 1974 and yet six year later along came Reagan. then you had the Republican lock on the presidency and books written about that during Reagan. Then in 1992 here comes Bill Clinton. With the number of independents these days, it is more about the candidates than about party.

Fruityfact · Aug 28, 2016

Perotista said:
I agree. You had a minority, 40% of Republicans ended up voting for Trump who were more interested in sending a message, making a statement to the Republican elected officials, to their party leaders than winning an election in November. I do think it is dawning on them now exactly what they have caused, the election of Hillary Clinton as president.

They may now be realizing that, but they are still in self denial. They're blaming it on the media, blaming it on the never Trumpers, blaming it on anyone and everything except those who caused this.

I've been around a long time. The demise of the Republican Party was suppose to happen in 1965 after Goldwater and 3 years later Nixon was elected president. Once again after Watergate, 1974 and yet six year later along came Reagan. then you had the Republican lock on the presidency and books written about that during Reagan. Then in 1992 here comes Bill Clinton. With the number of independents these days, it is more about the candidates than about party.

None of those "demises" stemmed from pure demographic change. THIS one is.

calamity · Aug 28, 2016

Perotista said:
I agree. You had a minority, 40% of Republicans ended up voting for Trump who were more interested in sending a message, making a statement to the Republican elected officials, to their party leaders than winning an election in November. I do think it is dawning on them now exactly what they have caused, the election of Hillary Clinton as president.

They may now be realizing that, but they are still in self denial. They're blaming it on the media, blaming it on the never Trumpers, blaming it on anyone and everything except those who caused this.

I've been around a long time. The demise of the Republican Party was suppose to happen in 1965 after Goldwater and 3 years later Nixon was elected president. Once again after Watergate, 1974 and yet six year later along came Reagan. then you had the Republican lock on the presidency and books written about that during Reagan. Then in 1992 here comes Bill Clinton. With the number of independents these days, it is more about the candidates than about party.

It's also about adapting to the electorate. A party has to adjust, not stand firmly to an ideology.

The Dems adjusted very well in 1992, ditching old-school leftist liberalism and running hard to the Center with Bill Clinton. He even managed to win quite a few of our current Red states: Tennessee, KY and WV especially; states which today would not vote for his wife even if she ran unopposed. Bill also won with less than 50% of the popular vote, which may very well be the case with Hillary this year.

Reagan did the same in '80, but in different fashion. He actually did run on "make America great again." And, it worked...mostly because Carter left most Americans feeling really bad about their country. I blame it more on the bungled hostage rescue attempt than the poor economy, but the high inflation and interest rates of that era didn't help Carter at all. Add to that the perception that Russia was on the rise and we were on the decline...and, it was clear to most voters that America did need to be made great again.

Today, few people do not think America is great. In fact, I am baffled as to the large numbers who rally behind the idea that it is not. If we look at almost any other country on the planet, of course we are great. What could make us not great? Trump.

calamity · Aug 28, 2016

Fruityfact said:
None of those "demises" stemmed from pure demographic change. THIS one is.

Baby boomer hippies grew up to eventually own mutual funds and become Tea Partiers. That's a shift. The GOP capitalized on that early. It took the D's until 1992 to figure out the new playing field.

Perotista · Aug 28, 2016

Fruityfact said:
None of those "demises" stemmed from pure demographic change. THIS one is.

political parties adapt and adjust. If nothing else except for self preservation. The GOP started to go after the Hispanic vote right after the 2012 election and increased it from 27% to 36% in 2014. But in elections, candidates are very important. The Republicans had the right candidates in 2014 to attract more Hispanics. They don't with Trump. If instead of Trump/Pence you had a Kasich/Rubio ticket or vice versa vs. a Clinton/Kaine ticket, the number of Hispanics voting Republican would have increased from 36% to whatever or at least remained close to 36%.

I think the Republicans screwed the pooch this year. They were idiots in whom they selected. But that was their call and they will pay for it with a President Hillary Clinton. If Rubio wins re-election to his senate seat, he'll probably be back running for the nomination in 2020. Then if I were a Republican I would also begin paying attention to their popular New Mexico Governor, Susanna Martinez. In fact I consider her presidential timber. But again, that is the GOP's call, not mine.

Its all about candidates. If the Republican Party is too stupid to realize that, then perhaps they do belong on the dust bin of history and let another party replace them.

Perotista · Aug 28, 2016

calamity said:
It's also about adapting to the electorate. A party has to adjust, not stand firmly to an ideology.

The Dems adjusted very well in 1992, ditching old-school leftist liberalism and running hard to the Center with Bill Clinton. He even managed to win quite a few of our current Red states: Tennessee, KY and WV especially; states which today would not vote for his wife even if she ran unopposed. Bill also won with less than 50% of the popular vote, which may very well be the case with Hillary this year.

Reagan did the same in '80, but in different fashion. He actually did run on "make America great again." And, it worked...mostly because Carter left most Americans feeling really bad about their country. I blame it more on the bungled hostage rescue attempt than the poor economy, but the high inflation and interest rates of that era didn't help Carter at all. Add to that the perception that Russia was on the rise and we were on the decline...and, it was clear to most voters that America did need to be made great again.

Today, few people do not think America is great. In fact, I am baffled as to the large numbers who rally behind the idea that it is not. If we look at almost any other country on the planet, of course we are great. What could make us not great? Trump.

Yes, two southerners on the same ticket in 1992. Unheard of. A unique way to break up that southern lock Reagan created. Now Bill started the DLC, a conservative democratic organization and was its head. The Democrats usually know what they have to do to win and do it. They also pick good candidates. Their crop back in 2006 to regain the House was excellent, it even included some pro-lifers. The Democrats for most part have been more interested in winning than making a statement. Making a statement can come after the race is won. Clinton also carried Georgia in 1992. Hillary is tied down here now, but much of that is Trump making Republican angry at him.

Bill had a well-funded and fairly well known Ross Perot running as a third party candidate. Hillary doesn’t have that. Third party candidates this year are totally unknown to most Americans and don’t have any money to buy political ads. Yet they are getting between 10-15% in the polls. That represents the disgust with both candidates this year. Me included. I agree, I highly doubt Hillary will get near 50%, but she doesn’t need to. 45 or 46% will be plenty especially if Trump stays at 37/38% as he has for the last three months.

The hostage crisis back in 1980 was the difference. Carter staying in the White House gave the impression he was the one held hostage. The rescue attempt, most of us agreed with. Most of us were saying it was about time Carter tried something. The Misery index did hurt Jimmy, but it was Reagan when he asked, “Are you better off today than four years ago? Most Americans answer to that was, no.

If you look at the right track/wrong track number, they show most Americans think we are headed in the wrong direction.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Direction of Country

That should make Trump’s job of beating Clinton easier, but he is too busy calling people names and making outrageous statements. He’s too busy showing people he is not presidential material. I think we agree that almost any other Republican candidate could beat Hillary. I also think almost any other Democratic candidate would be 15 points ahead of Trump is not more than just 5 or so ahead that Clinton is. As of today, all the polls confirm neither is liked. But Hillary Clinton is disliked less than Trump and this year, that is enough.

Harry Guerrilla · Aug 29, 2016

calamity said:
Interesting eulogy or wishful thinking?

Buh bye backwards party...don't let the door hit ya.

Both parties are codependent.
If one goes down, the other does to.

The only reason either of them are able to form a semblance of unity, is because each is opposed to the other.
When the other is gone, internal destruction begins.
How do you think the Republican party came about to begin with?

tres borrachos · Aug 29, 2016

calamity said:
I agree. Had the GOP nominated Kasich, and allowed him to run on his core message, I suspect we would have been talking about the end of the Democrats, at least as we know them today: The Clinton Party.

But, since he only received 10% of his party's vote--tops--I have to conclude that the GOP is out to commit suicide by charging up the Hill of the Lost Cause. Why they did that baffles me to no end. I would have rather focused on winning. Kasich Rubio 2016 would have been a winning ticket.

Amen top to bottom. You are spot on.

calamity · Aug 29, 2016

tres borrachos said:
Amen top to bottom. You are spot on.

I can only shake my head at the stubborn, stupidity that gave us Trump-Pence.

Kasich-Rubio would have opened the party up to everyone. Kasich with his conservative bonafides peppered with a blue-collar background would have drawn in a solid number of undecided independents, disenchanted moderate Dems, and also shored up the conservative base. There would never have been a #neverkasich. And, Rubio, as VP, would have been well positioned to not only move the party forward through the latter half of the 2020's, but he would have brought in a lot of Latinos, who would probably be lifelong republicans thereafter. A golden opportunity missed...and why?

I have no idea what drove them to the brink. But, here they are.

Fiddytree · Aug 29, 2016

If I recall correctly (it's been a number of weeks), all that article was arguing is that a realignment within the Republican Party may be occurring. They are not arguing that the Republican Party is dying out.

In that, I think it has a strong possibility. There has been additional research which suggests Trump's impact will be long-felt within the Party after his (likely) defeat.

But then again, there are far too many people in the Republican Party who either identify themselves with Ronald Reagan or with the small government faction of the Tea Party movement (I also interject that the "alt-right" was in with the Tea Party as well) for this to be a rapid switch, or a switch at all.

In the end I stick to being skeptical about the extent of Trump's impact on the Republican Party. On one hand I could easily see Trump's impact quickly fade as he loses. On the other, I can easily see this following as a major component to the Republican Party's tent in the years to come, but not anywhere enough to usurp control. Because the so-called "alt-right" is hinged so heavily on the changing demographics of America, I think they will continue to be around in one shape or another for the coming few decades.

Fiddytree · Aug 29, 2016

Harry Guerrilla said:
Both parties are codependent.
If one goes down, the other does to.

The only reason either of them are able to form a semblance of unity, is because each is opposed to the other.
When the other is gone, internal destruction begins.
How do you think the Republican party came about to begin with?

I think you are largely right, but I would temper that a bit. While we require factions, formalized to the degree necessary, not all factionalism was created equal.

The Whigs destructed, disbanded, and reunited under an altered banner extremely quickly. The creation of the Whigs in the aftermath of the War of 1812, on the other hand, took quite a bit of time.

Harry Guerrilla · Aug 29, 2016

Fiddytree said:
I think you are largely right, but I would temper that a bit. While we require factions, formalized to the degree necessary, not all factionalism was created equal.

The Whigs destructed, disbanded, and reunited under an altered banner extremely quickly. The creation of the Whigs in the aftermath of the War of 1812, on the other hand, took quite a bit of time.

I think now with the increase of the spread of information, the vacuum wouldn't last long, if at all.
If it did, I'd guarantee a split in the Dems, along the Liberal and Progressive lines.

The End Of A Republican Party

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

KevinKohler

SDET

Gaea

RetiredUSN

calamity

Privileged

Fishking

calamity

Privileged

Fishking

calamity

Privileged

Perotista

calamity

Privileged

Perotista

Fruityfact

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

Perotista

Perotista

Harry Guerrilla

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

calamity

Privileged

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist

Harry Guerrilla