Time to face facts, the GOP is NOT a national party

[Non Swing Voter]

I'm going to stop beating around the bush with these threads and see if one of you right wingers can give a coherent argument why the GOP is a national and not hyper-regional party with regard to Presidential elections.

Lets look at the 4 major regions of the country:

Northeast - GOP is entirely shut out, doesn't even compete in all but one state.

West Coast - GOP is entirely shut out, doesn't even compete in any state.

Midwest - At best, GOP wins a draw here.

South - Once the GOP's completely fortified base region... and now, the walls are crumbling from both ends.  Florida is becoming more and more competitive.  Virginia is probably lost to the GOP for a generation.  North Carolina and Georgia are following Virginia's lead.

Is the definition of a national party not one that can compete in every region?  As Democrats have shown for the past 25 years they can?  The only election where Democrats arguably didn't compete in 1 of the 4 regions was Bush v. Kerry, other than that they remained competitive in the South in every other election including Bush v. Gore, where some would say Gore actually won the popular vote in Florida.

On the other hand, the GOP has hardly competed in the Northeast or West Coast in almost every election since Clinton.  The GOP has no plans to rebuild the party in either region.  The GOP doesn't even know how it is going to re-establish its dominance in places like Virginia and North Carolina.

It's kind of pathetic that such a well-funded party has turned into such an unmitigated disaster.

The only way I see the GOP re-establishing itself as a credible national party with regard to Presidential elections is to establish itself as the dominant party in the Midwest.  This means consistently winning the majority of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and/or Ohio.  

If the GOP re-established itself as a credible national party in say 10 years by doing this... this is how I would see the national map:

blue = lean D states
red = lean R states
unshaded = pure tossups

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bFpv

[Adam Griffin]

A fun observation I just now made:

Average EVs for Republican nominee from the past two elections = 190

Modern-day EVs of CSA states + disputed territories = 190

Congrats, Republicans! You reap what you sow.

[IceSpear]

The GOP got 47.1% of the vote in 2012. McCain got 45.7% in the worst possible conditions for a Republican and with a complete and widely mocked idiot as his running mate. I'd call that a national party.

With the way many Democrats talk, you'd think Republicans can't crack double digits.

[Adam Griffin]

The GOP got 47.1% of the vote in 2012. McCain got 45.7% in the worst possible conditions for a Republican and with a complete and widely mocked idiot as his running mate. I'd call that a national party.

With the way many Democrats talk, you'd think Republicans can't crack double digits.

It's pretty telling and/or significant when a party derives 41% of votes cast for its nominee, 46% of House seats & 47% of Senate seats from a region that only comprises 37% of the country (my map above; unless you're the majority party, of course).

But hey, Romney only got 28% of his campaign contributions from here, so that's a start.

[HAnnA MArin County]

The GOP got 47.1% of the vote in 2012. McCain got 45.7% in the worst possible conditions for a Republican and with a complete and widely mocked idiot as his running mate. I'd call that a national party.

With the way many Democrats talk, you'd think Republicans can't crack double digits.

^^This.

Republicans are still a national party. To say that they don't compete in particular regions of the country is a bit native and just wishful thinking. They almost always compete everywhere even in places where they know they cannot win, as do Democrats. This is what bothers me most about the Democratic Party. Can we really say that we won the last election, or did Republicans lose it for us? Yes, they ran a terrible candidate and we ran a good one, which is their fault, because history showed that any Republican should have been able to have defeated Barack Obama in 2012 given the circumstances, especially with regards to the economy and the unemployment rate. Arguably, the same can be said for the Senate. Yes, the Republicans probably should have been able to take control of the Senate but they nominated crazies who talked about rape of all issues and lost in conservative states that they shouldn't have (Missouri and Indiana), and Democrats ran better candidates in even more conservative states that we shouldn't have won (Montana and North Dakota). As a party, we cannot just continue to sit back and let the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot because one of these days, they are going to wake up and realize that the extremists in their party are hurting them. We should win based on our platform and the ideals and values that we hold dear, NOT because of the other party's ability to nominate extremists and loons along the lines of Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, etc.

You can make the argument that Republicans are losing more because of their message than their messengers, which is a valid argument to make, but to suggest that they aren't a national party anymore is a bit ridiculous. Of course they are. In fact, one of the country's most popular Republicans right now hails from a blue state in the Northeast (Chris Christie). Republican Susan Collins continues to win in landslide reelections in blue state Maine. Washington State elected a Republican Secretary of State in 2012 (Kim Wyman), and Republicans hold plenty of seats in the Pacific West Coast congressional delegation.

Until third parties start to gain more traction, I just don't think you can make the argument that the Republican Party is no longer a national party.  

[IceSpear]

The GOP got 47.1% of the vote in 2012. McCain got 45.7% in the worst possible conditions for a Republican and with a complete and widely mocked idiot as his running mate. I'd call that a national party.

With the way many Democrats talk, you'd think Republicans can't crack double digits.

^^This.

Republicans are still a national party. To say that they don't compete in particular regions of the country is a bit native and just wishful thinking. They almost always compete everywhere even in places where they know they cannot win, as do Democrats. This is what bothers me most about the Democratic Party. Can we really say that we won the last election, or did Republicans lose it for us? Yes, they ran a terrible candidate and we ran a good one, which is their fault, because history showed that any Republican should have been able to have defeated Barack Obama in 2012 given the circumstances, especially with regards to the economy and the unemployment rate. Arguably, the same can be said for the Senate. Yes, the Republicans probably should have been able to take control of the Senate but they nominated crazies who talked about rape of all issues and lost in conservative states that they shouldn't have (Missouri and Indiana), and Democrats ran better candidates in even more conservative states that we shouldn't have won (Montana and North Dakota). As a party, we cannot just continue to sit back and let the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot because one of these days, they are going to wake up and realize that the extremists in their party are hurting them. We should win based on our platform and the ideals and values that we hold dear, NOT because of the other party's ability to nominate extremists and loons along the lines of Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, etc.

You can make the argument that Republicans are losing more because of their message than their messengers, which is a valid argument to make, but to suggest that they aren't a national party anymore is a bit ridiculous. Of course they are. In fact, one of the country's most popular Republicans right now hails from a blue state in the Northeast (Chris Christie). Republican Susan Collins continues to win in landslide reelections in blue state Maine. Washington State elected a Republican Secretary of State in 2012 (Kim Wyman), and Republicans hold plenty of seats in the Pacific West Coast congressional delegation.

Until third parties start to gain more traction, I just don't think you can make the argument that the Republican Party is no longer a national party.  

Seriously. If Republicans can get 47% of the vote with a horrible candidate like Romney who was on tape bashing half the country, and can win the House despite the fact that the party is controlled by far right maniacs, it frightens me how well they could potentially do with self discipline and decent candidates.

[ElectionsGuy]

Okay, seriously, can we please stop the trolling on this board?

[TDAS04]

West Coast - GOP is entirely shut out, doesn't even compete in any state.

Alaska.

[Indy Texas]

Okay, seriously, can we please stop the trolling on this board?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

For the past 20 years, Republicans have been on defense, yes. But they are by no means defeated.


The GOP survived 1932-1964, they're going to survive 1992-2012/2016/whatever

[DC Al Fine]

Okay, seriously, can we please stop the trolling on this board?

This. Threads like this are funny coming from Canada where 47% is a once in a lifetime landslide win

Also @ the OP, you ignored one of the Republicans best regions; the Great Plains. They've owned them the past couple of elections and the Dems are only remotely competitive in a couple.

[opebo]

While it is true the party is becoming 'regionalized' to a certain degree, and suffering from an narrowing racial base.. and the way 'out of this' isn't very clear.  But, its still a very strong institution, with more influence over policy than the Democratic party.

[Vern]

The problem is the GOP is currently being ran by old folks who are stuck in the past but there are many younger GOPers who will soon take over and not be stuck in the past and move the GOP back to where it once was. We just have to wait for the older GOPers to die or get booted out.

[opebo]

The problem is the GOP is currently being ran by old folks who are stuck in the past but there are many younger GOPers who will soon take over and not be stuck in the past and move the GOP back to where it once was. We just have to wait for the older GOPers to die or get booted out.

Um.. what is different about the ideology or policy of these younger ones?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The US two party system has always been a regionalized affair.

In fact elections like those of 1960 and 1976, where all states are competative basically, are the exception.

[Dancing with Myself]

The GOP is far from dead, just in a down period.

The Dems were in the same spot in the 1980's and 50's, it takes time for the Public to forgive a down-turn.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Democrats were hardly down in the 1950's. They lost the White House, but one could hardly deny there was a natural Democratic majority, as Congress illustrated.

[Niemeyerite]

I somewhat agree with the OP. I don't think the GOP's dead, but they need a 50-state strategy in order to improve their image... A republican Howard Dean, leading the RNC, would certainly help them, don't you think? They may not win California's or NY EV's, for example, but they need to appeal to their inhabitants to get some cash + some good press.

[Non Swing Voter]

The US two party system has always been a regionalized affair.

In fact elections like those of 1960 and 1976, where all states are competative basically, are the exception.

It is regional to a degree.  Most elections one party or another has a base region they try to expand upon.  But the GOP is contracting so much that it can't even solidly rely on its base region (the South) to deliver a huge amount of electoral votes.  Some of the largest electoral prizes in the region are becoming competitive or lean Dem.

Additionally, though there is a GOP troll above that attempts to label me a troll in every thread because I won't respond to his self-serving posts, this topic was about Presidential Elections... so the argument many posters above are making about how the GOP is competing in the Northeast and West Coast is false... they haven't really been competing in any west coast or northeast states (except New Hampshire) in years...

[Non Swing Voter]

I somewhat agree with the OP. I don't think the GOP's dead, but they need a 50-state strategy in order to improve their image... A republican Howard Dean, leading the RNC, would certainly help them, don't you think? They may not win California's or NY EV's, for example, but they need to appeal to their inhabitants to get some cash + some good press.

Exactly... when they are completely shut out of regions like NY/CA/IL... it has consequences beyond those electoral votes.  It's also absurd to not be competing in so many states that offer huge sums of electoral votes.  If the Republicans could count on Florida as a base state it would somewhat offset this between TX/FL... however, even that state could drift away as the I-4 corridor grows in size and becomes heavily minority.

The way I see it... their biggest downfall is that they ceded the urban vote. 

LA, SF, Seattle, Portland make the West Coast not competitive.

NYC metro makes much of the Northeast not competitive, in addition to Boston, Philly.

DC metro makes much of the Mid-Atlantic not competitive.

Chicago metro makes IL not competitive.

Inversely...

Las Vegas, Denver make NV/CO competitive for Democrats or lean Democrat.

South Florida makes FL competitive for Democrats.

Atlanta is starting to make GA competitive for Democrats.

[Mister Mets]

The three East Coast states and New England (the definition of Northeastern United States that doesn't include Pennsylvania) include 9 of the 14 most Democratic-leaning states in the country (it's ten out of 14 if you include New York as a northeastern state) so it's a bit self-serving to cite that as an example of how the Republicans are not a national party. It would be like a Republican claiming that the weakness of Democrats in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana demonstrates their shortcomings as a national party.

I also don't see how Virginia can be lost to the GOP for a generation when for the last two elections, it's been the state that's closest to the national popular vote. As noted, Republican losses in the popular vote haven't been that historic, even in cycles in which the party had major problems.

There is greater geographic division in the country, so that less states are in play. It seems to me there are 191 electoral votes the GOP can generally rely on, 191 electoral votes the Democrats can generally rely on and 156 electoral votes in twelve states that are up for grabs.

On occasion, in a good year, a particular candidate with a regional advantage might add a few states to the total. Obama got a boost in neighboring Indiana. Chris Christie probably has a shot at winning New Jersey.

[Mr. Illini]

While it is clear that the GOP is struggling, it is not fair to say that they haven't competed on the West Coast or in the Northeast. They are obviously second-tier parties in both regions, but have competed in Oregon out west and have been elected state-wide in New Hampshire and Massachusetts out east.

[Bureaucat]

While it is clear that the GOP is struggling, it is not fair to say that they haven't competed on the West Coast or in the Northeast. They are obviously second-tier parties in both regions, but have competed in Oregon out west and have been elected state-wide in New Hampshire and Massachusetts out east.

Fair enough, if you are talking about electing Governors and Congressmen, but with regards to Presidential elections it is a fair statement that with rare exceptions (Alaska and 1 win in the last 6 tries in New Hampshire), the GOP has not been competitive in the Northeast and the Pacific coast for over 20 years.

[Bureaucat]

It's a little disingenuous to say that there are 12 states "up for grabs". They are considered "competitive" because the margins of victory have been under 10 points, but in the 72 state elections in those 12 states in the last 6 presidential elections, the Dems have won 50 for a winning percentage of nearly seventy percent (69.44% to be precise).  So until some of those states with narrow but persistent Democratic margins shift Red, the Democrats have a considerable advantage in the electoral college.

[Indy Texas]

These are the states the GOP has carried every time in the past four presidential elections

These are the states with at least one Republican US Senator.

If the fact that no states adjacent to the Pacific Ocean have Republican US Senators or governors means the GOP isn't a national party, does the fact that there are no Democratic governors in the Gulf Coast states mean the Democratic Party isn't a national party?