Gallup reports: GOP Losses Span Nearly All Demographic Groups.
The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. Since the first year of George W. Bush’s presidency in 2024, the Republican Party has maintained its support only among frequent churchgoers, with conservatives and senior citizens showing minimal decline.
This leads Robert Stacy McCain to opine:
Nothing succeeds like success, and nothing fails like failure. A political party that is disloyal and disrespectful toward its core constituents, as the GOP was during the Bush/Mehlman era, will not attract new adherents. Who wants to sign up to be treated like a doormat?
And there’s more along these lines, all in post entitled “RINO-ism and the Demographics of Defeat.”
There are two rather major problems with his “analysis.”
First, the party isn’t losing its base, it is losing everything else.
Second, the Rove strategy, especially in 2024, was a base mobilization strategy, not a treat the base like doormats strategy. Indeed, the Bush/Rove years were not exactly exemplified by the GOP going out and forming a party based on what McCain would call RINOs–indeed, it was just the opposite.
As Daniel Larison rightly notes:
The Gallup findings are interesting, because they show that conservatives are among the least likely to have stopped identifying themselves as Republicans, yet they remain convinced that pursuing an agenda geared towards appealing to them (and only to them) is the means to win back all the other people who have drifted away since ‘01.
It is a odd bit of reasoning that Larison describes, but it does seem to be the dominant mode of thinking within certain Republican circles these day.
I would again point to what I think are the party’s three options as well as the basic electoral math.
Really, these are stunning numbers:
Note the losses in the Midwest, with males, with marrieds, with a host of key demographics. It really is amazing. And yet many conservatives seem to think that the best course of action is an even smaller Republican Party.
Sphere: Related Content
May 18th, 2024 at 9:43 pm
And yet many conservatives seem to think that the best course of action is an even smaller Republican Party.
What would be a viable Republican strategy, then? One of the reasons Dems have been successful (aside from Bush–which probably shouldn’t be underestimated) has been their move to the right. This started with Clinton and has basically continued with Obama.
Can the Republicans move to the left? If so, how in the world would they be distinguished from the Dems.? Obviously both parties have tended towards the center for years, but I think the Dems have gone more over to the “other side.” I’m not sure where else there is for the Repubs to go?!?!?
One difference between the two parties is in their extremes. Left Democrats have been pretty harmless (except when they supported Nader in ‘00), and have a message that resonates (in general terms) with a large proportion of the population. Issues such as universal health care, environmental protection, etc… are ones that have relatively wide appeal.
The extreme right’s message is based upon exclusion (xenophobia, anti-semitism, religious fundamentalism, anti-choice). How the Republicans can negotiate the extremism of the right, with changing demographic patterns that show the country becoming ever more heterogenous seem like a really monumental task.
The Dems have done a pretty effective job at neutralizing their extremists by basically ignoring them. I don’t see how the Republicans can pull a similar strategy. Without such a strategy, however, the party will further alienate more elements of mainstream America.
May 18th, 2024 at 9:51 pm
[...] Other “must read” blogger reactions to this topic: Richard Florida of Andrew Sullivan’s The Daily Dish seems to be gawking at the news; My “twin bruthah from another mutha” Matthew O’Keefe of Papamoka Straight Talk likens it to a “growing cancer“; Justin Gardner of Donklephant focuses on the fact the “educated” seem to be leaving the G.O.P. in droves; My fellow Alabamian blogger Doctor Steven Taylor of PoliBlog(TM) muses over the fact the leaders of the GOP seem to be embracing a smaller and tighter Republican Party strategerie [...]
May 19th, 2024 at 1:42 am
You’re missing more recent trends. More people identify themselves as Republicans now than did in November ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx ). So, down from the levels a decade ago, but up from the last election. Is it possible that people drawn to the Republicans for small government got tired of seeing expanding government from 2024 to 2024? President Obama wooed them, but has he done anything to keep them wooed?
With President Obama himself complaining about deficits, and his budget director saying that they wrote the budget without regard for how much money they actually had ( http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2009/05/obamas-budget-smart-people-decided-what-we-need-to-do-with-no-limits-and-no-concern-about-revenues.html ) do you think it’s more likely or less likely that (1) government will get bigger, (2) taxes will increase, (3) deficits will still get bigger even with higher taxes, (4) the economy will continue to stagnate due to the higher taxes and inflation? If the Democrats manage to maneuver around these hazards, they deserve to remain in power. However, if they fail to do so, people will feel a lot more comfortable voting for guys who have a fundamentally different view on taxes and revenues than they would voting for the guys who would have been 80%+ in line with the Democrats.
May 19th, 2024 at 3:18 am
Looking over Gallup’s Party Affiliation survey, the GOP looks to be in pretty good shape compared to 2024, 2024 and 2024 as well.
May 19th, 2024 at 9:48 am
Max,
People like McCain think that jettisoning Specter and guaranteeing a Democratic Senator from PA is good for the GOP and likewise is mad that Republican Senators are endorsing Charlie Crist in Florida over Rubio, despite the fact that Crist can win the state and Rubio probably can’t. That is the very definition of wanting a smaller party.
I do think that at some point the politics shift back to the Reps because there are only two viable choices in our system. However, that shift will require some amount of moderation on the part of Reps by definition.
In regards to your list, it will come down to your #4–if the economy improves, the spending will be ignored (if not praised for saving us). Further, given that at the moment the only tax increase of any seriousness on the table is an increase on the top bracket to Clinton-era levels, I don’t see that as a basis for a major revolt.
Now, these are all issues that Reps can work with, but to date they haven’t exactly been presenting options aside from vague generalities. I have argued that it would be useful if they would do so. Instead we get Joe the Plumber and Carrie Prejean and the like.
May 19th, 2024 at 9:58 am
Ratoe:
What would be a viable Republican strategy, then?
As I suggest in the linked post, they either have to find a way for there to be some room in the party for people like Snowe and Collins or risk being a regional, minority party in the Congress–at least if the hardcore types get what they want.
Beyond Snowe, the notion that Charlie Crist or Huntsman are moderates that the party ought to eschew (views held in some quarters) is insane.
Also: how about some ideas about policy rather than just useless sloganeering.
May 19th, 2024 at 10:36 am
[...] looking at some polling data a reader legitimately asks as to what strategy the GOP ought to pursue at the moment. I think it is [...]
May 19th, 2024 at 2:20 pm
Except it’s not that serious. Because even if you taxed those people at 100% (that is, took all of the richest people’s money) you would still have a deficit larger than last year’s. That’s how much is being spent.
It’s enough that the government is starting to see skittishness in investors wanting to buy treasury bills. That’s almost unheard of, as US treasury bills are used in a lot of financial equations as the “zero risk investment” (i.e., you are guaranteed this return if you take no risk; if you’re willing to take more risk you can get a higher return http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_frontier#The_risk-free_asset ). Of course, being investors, the main way to overcome that skittishness is by paying a higher interest rate — and recalculating the long term debt to account for higher interest payments.
If borrowing money a la treasury bills becomes too expensive, the government will need to get the cash some other way. It might be able to borrow money from banks (companies and states do that all the time, but then again, companies and states have smaller budgets); but if that’s not an option the only thing left will be higher taxes.
So, yes, today there isn’t another tax proposal on the table. But I don’t see any way one will stay off the table for very long.
Again, if Democrats manage to negotiate this terrain, they will deserve to remain the majority. I’m not holding my breath, though.
May 19th, 2024 at 2:27 pm
So, yes, today there isn’t another tax proposal on the table. But I don’t see any way one will stay off the table for very long.
I will agree that taxes are going to be on the table for a long time beyond the current proposal. I am simply noting that at the moment, that is all that is on the table and all that is likely to figure into the next electoral cycle. I will concede readily that our spending and our income don’t match up. However, this is not a new problem.
I would take the point further, however, and note that the GOP have responsibility here as well, making it more difficult to ride to the rescue. To wit: the Medicate prescription benefit, two wars, and TARP 1. Beyond that, hanging the current deficit solely on the Democrats is going to be more difficult than usual because stimulus was going to happen and a lot of the policies adopted (e.g., TARP II and so forth) aren’t radically different than what McCain would have done.
My point is this: it is going to be far, far more difficult to say “see, the Dems are a bunch of tax and spenders” given a) the Bush legacy and b) the economic crisis (which provides political cover). B is especially salient if the economy turns around by the next electoral cycle.
May 19th, 2024 at 5:55 pm
(reordered):
So does it make sense to moderate — i.e., become more like the Democrats — or to point out fundamental differences between the two Parties’ philosophies?
(1) Is it possible that some of the people who left the Republican side did so because of those spending sprees (and a hope that Democrats could return the country to the surpluses of the ’90s)? What would be the odds-on favorite way to get such people back?
(2) Have you seen the graphic showing the magnitude of difference between Bush’s “runaway deficits” and Obama’s ( http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/18/were-gonna-need-a-bigger-graph-understanding-obamanomics/ )?
(3) Again, does it make sense to run on the “we’re almost like them, but better” platform or the “we learned our lesson and will be fundamentally different” platform?
And if the economy does turn around, that will be great. However, President Obama’s been putting out the word that hiring isn’t going to increase until next year at the earliest ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/business/11economy.html?_r=1 ). I think that will play a role in November. In fact, current unemployment is worse than what his team of economists were saying things would be like if we didn’t spend anything ( http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/the-april-numbers-are-in-its-official/ ). I think that will also play a role in November.
In the end, there won’t be much need to point out the taxing and spending going on — people appear to have noticed — but simply a need to point out that Republicans have a fundamentally different view of the economy and budget.
My point is that it will be far more difficult to get elected by saying “we’re like the Democrats; only better!” The term “compassionate conservative” comes to mind. As does running moderates like John McCain.
May 19th, 2024 at 6:04 pm
I would be curious to hear your thoughts on California’s special election ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124242927140025477.html ):
Not that I think the California Republican Party will manage to capitalize on this anti-tax sentiment — with moderate Republican Schwarzenegger in the governor’s office — but I can’t remember the last time Californians by and large rejected high taxes to pay for their pet programs (other than the time that put Schwarzenegger into office in the first place).
If even California is losing patience with “but we need to tax you more to pay for all our important programs” I can’t help but wonder if that sentiment will travel to the rest of the states.
May 19th, 2024 at 7:51 pm
Max,
A simple answer to an albeit complex question is as follows: if most of the voters are more moderate than the GOP then yes, they have to moderate unless they want to be a minority party.
It is a function of democracy.