The so-called "Demise" of the Republican Party is way overblown

[DS0816]

Recently, I have read some articles claiming that the GOP's time is up, they are being left behind, the country is moving leftward, etc. I do not believe this.After all, they currently control both the upper and lower chambers of Congress, 31 governors mansions and 2/3 of the state legislatures. Give or take a few percentage points, and they would have the Whitehouse too! The GOP is just fine and if they nominate well, we could be talking about a President Walker or Rubio come 2016. In fact if anything, It is the Dems who should fear for their future; With the GOP controlling all those states, they can gerrymander themselves to a house majority for a long, long time....

This means nothing.

When the Republican realigning election of 1968 took hold, that party didn't win the House until 26 years later. The U.S. Supreme Court was considered liberal (by comparison to today's court). And the midterm elections, which today have 36 gubernatorial elections (including those from nine of the ten most-populous states), are typically around 40 percent of those who participate with voting in presidential elections [years].

If you look at the 17th Amendment, from the 1910s, allowing the people of every state to directly elect their U.S. senators, you should go ahead and do the following: Ask yourself, "Of the two houses of Congress, which one—but not both—would tend to be in the column as the same party which has the White House?"

It's the Senate.

The only period in which the House, but not the Senate, was in the same party column as the presidency was in that period of 2001 to 2002 when Jim Jeffords, from Vermont, switched from Republican to independent—to caucus with the Democrats—and that moved majority control over to the Democrats (while the House was in the Republican column along with the presidency). That wasn't the result of an election. And, in the midterm elections of 2006, the one house of Congress which was more quick, on the timeline, to flip party control was the House. (The Senate couldn't be determined on Election Night.)

Look to what went on past realigning periods … very much including changes in the electorate in which the party, at a disadvantage, could not overcome. If not enough for you … look to the changes in same-sex couple having legal marriage; to elimination of banning non-heterosexuals from serving in U.S. military; to the Affordable Care Act; to marijuana; to … well, perhaps, you'll catch on.

[hopper]

]As long as the GoP has control of SCOTUS, they will control the House. But, once redistricting or a liberal SCOTUS is in place, whichdever happen first,  the GOP gerrymandering is gottob rid of; thrn they will lose sway.

Latinos and blacks already have sealed up in large part 272 electors with CO, NV and Pa, and alot of social issues have gone the way of Europe.

GOP power is dwindling.

I think you're right. IF Clinton wins and (as is likely) appoints liberal Justices, the GOP is going to  the loss of their gerrymandered edge at the same time as they lose the demographic battle over the next decade.

Ok, Gerrymandering is wrong but its not like if not for gerrymandering that the Dems would have the House Majority.

[hopper]

The fact that Republicans have to gerrymander so aggressively just to have a chance at controlling the house and even several state legislatures shows that there is a major problem. At this point, they are drafting laws that draw districts that are not of equal population in order to maximize their votes. That behavior does not indicate a very healthy future.

What? The Supreme Court has laws on the books that all districts have to be equal in population.

[Bojack Horseman]

]As long as the GoP has control of SCOTUS, they will control the House. But, once redistricting or a liberal SCOTUS is in place, whichdever happen first,  the GOP gerrymandering is gottob rid of; thrn they will lose sway.

Latinos and blacks already have sealed up in large part 272 electors with CO, NV and Pa, and alot of social issues have gone the way of Europe.

GOP power is dwindling.

I think you're right. IF Clinton wins and (as is likely) appoints liberal Justices, the GOP is going to  the loss of their gerrymandered edge at the same time as they lose the demographic battle over the next decade.

Ok, Gerrymandering is wrong but its not like if not for gerrymandering that the Dems would have the House Majority.

If we'd had the same districts in 2012 as we did in 2010, we'd have taken back the House and probably held it in 2014.

As for the whole "The GOP is dying!!!" narrative, we've heard it before. Everybody wrote off Bill Clinton as having the same chance of being re-elected as Jimmy Carter after the 1994 elections, that '96 would be the completion of the Republican Revolution, then what happened? Clinton came back and won re-election in an even bigger landslide than he won in 1992. What did we hear then? "OMG THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING EXTINCT!!!!!"

It's a pendulum that swings back and forth, and eventually, when Republicans get full federal control, the bottom will collapse on them and start swinging back. Now I'm not sure how far it will swing back, considering that the Obama administration and the Republican-created mass hysteria resulted in half the country thinking that the Democrats are plotting to destroy America from within.

[pbrower2a]

The Republicans have the money, the organization, and the fanatics.

That is enough.

[Mister Mets]

]As long as the GoP has control of SCOTUS, they will control the House. But, once redistricting or a liberal SCOTUS is in place, whichdever happen first,  the GOP gerrymandering is gottob rid of; thrn they will lose sway.

Latinos and blacks already have sealed up in large part 272 electors with CO, NV and Pa, and alot of social issues have gone the way of Europe.

GOP power is dwindling.

I think you're right. IF Clinton wins and (as is likely) appoints liberal Justices, the GOP is going to  the loss of their gerrymandered edge at the same time as they lose the demographic battle over the next decade.

Ok, Gerrymandering is wrong but its not like if not for gerrymandering that the Dems would have the House Majority.

If we'd had the same districts in 2012 as we did in 2010, we'd have taken back the House and probably held it in 2014.

As for the whole "The GOP is dying!!!" narrative, we've heard it before. Everybody wrote off Bill Clinton as having the same chance of being re-elected as Jimmy Carter after the 1994 elections, that '96 would be the completion of the Republican Revolution, then what happened? Clinton came back and won re-election in an even bigger landslide than he won in 1992. What did we hear then? "OMG THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING EXTINCT!!!!!"

It's a pendulum that swings back and forth, and eventually, when Republicans get full federal control, the bottom will collapse on them and start swinging back. Now I'm not sure how far it will swing back, considering that the Obama administration and the Republican-created mass hysteria resulted in half the country thinking that the Democrats are plotting to destroy America from within.

Do you have evidence of the first claim? Republicans beat Democrats by a 6.5 point margin in 2014.

That seems hard to overcome without gerrymandering that's very favorable to Democrats, especially given how Republicans benefit from geographic sorting.

[Bigby]

The last name change for a party was in 1854 when the Whigs were replaced by the Republicans. If anything, there will just be another realignment. I don't see the labels themselves shifting any time soon, just the party makeup behind the labels.

[Mechaman]

The last name change for a party was in 1854 when the Whigs were replaced by the Republicans. If anything, there will just be another realignment. I don't see the labels themselves shifting any time soon, just the party makeup behind the labels.

The Whigs did not "morph" into the GOP.  Many former Whigs joined the GOP when it became clear that their party was a sinking ship and that the Know Nothings were a very shortly lived fad that would not catch on due to of all things their moderate hero views on slavery at a time when everyone and their grandmother were falling into pretty clearly defined camps on the matter.