How long will Dems' new structural advantage last?

[Jacobtm]

Thanks to two brief cycles of fantastic organization under Dean/Schumer/Emanuel/Obama, the Dems now have a huge structural advantage over Republicans. They've registered more voters, they have better voter files, more organized party machines/GOTV operations in many states etc.

How long will this last?

Considering the Republicans had the huge advantage in '04, I wouldn't be too surprised if they could turn it around and retake the house as soon as '12, and the senate by '14 or '16. But, of course, just because they could do it, doesn't mean they will.

[Lunar]

2012 could be a rough year for the Democrats since they have far more seats running for reelection.

It all depends how long it takes the GOP to shed the "white" image without pissing off immigration activists.

[Jacobtm]

2012 could be a rough year for the Democrats since they have far more seats running for reelection.

It all depends how long it takes the GOP to shed the "white" image without pissing off immigration activists.

Lest we forget there are a great many lilly-white regions where the GOP is doing quite poorly now. It certainly hurts them in many areas that they could do well in, but it's not like that is their problem everywhere.

[paul718]

GOP gains seats in 2010 and 2012, but the Democrats retain control of both houses at least until 2014.  

[Padfoot]

2012 could be a rough year for the Democrats since they have far more seats running for reelection.

It all depends how long it takes the GOP to shed the "white" image without pissing off immigration activists.

I don't think they have any choice but to piss off immigration activists.  The GOP is going to have to untangle itself from its base of religious zealots and xenophobes to have any hope of regaining power.  The GOP has built its base on the platform of "restoring social order" after the social upheaval of the 1960s.  However they were never really able to reverse any of the changes brought about by that upheaval and now the majority of the people who initially opposed those changes are dead.  IMO, the GOP basically has to become a more moderate version of the Libertarian Party before it has nay hope of regaining Congress or the White House.

[Lunar]

2012 could be a rough year for the Democrats since they have far more seats running for reelection.

It all depends how long it takes the GOP to shed the "white" image without pissing off immigration activists.

Lest we forget there are a great many lilly-white regions where the GOP is doing quite poorly now. It certainly hurts them in many areas that they could do well in, but it's not like that is their problem everywhere.

Of, of course.  Being the "white party" doesn't mean you win all whites -- it just means your strangling yourself to a demographic that's slowly fading away.

So as far as "structural advantages" go, the Democrats have an inherent one that will slowly and slowly grow until the GOP can appeal to upwardly mobile Hispanics and Asians.

[The Populist]

I don't see the Democrats losing their majorities until at least 2017 in the Senate, and maybe later in the House.  The GOP is going to need two extremely good cycles in the Senate, and 2010 doesn't have enough opportunities.  2012 can be a good year for them, but a lot of our winners this year will be fairly safe, so they need to hope for retirements in 2014/2016 before they can win back the Senate.

[Stranger in a strange land]

2012 could be a rough year for the Democrats since they have far more seats running for reelection.

It all depends how long it takes the GOP to shed the "white" image without pissing off immigration activists.

I don't even think it's so much that as that they need to find a way to win over younger voters. Bush succeeded in turning Gen Y against the Republican party, but it doesn't have to stay that way.

[Lunar]

2012 could be a rough year for the Democrats since they have far more seats running for reelection.

It all depends how long it takes the GOP to shed the "white" image without pissing off immigration activists.

I don't even think it's so much that as that they need to find a way to win over younger voters. Bush succeeded in turning Gen Y against the Republican party, but it doesn't have to stay that way.

Well, young voters might want a more modern-looking party and part of being modern-looking is to be demographically diverse.

[opebo]

I don't know.  How long is the Depression going to last?

[justfollowingtheelections]

2012 could be a rough year for the Democrats since they have far more seats running for reelection.

It all depends how long it takes the GOP to shed the "white" image without pissing off immigration activists.

I don't think they have any choice but to piss off immigration activists.  The GOP is going to have to untangle itself from its base of religious zealots and xenophobes to have any hope of regaining power.  The GOP has built its base on the platform of "restoring social order" after the social upheaval of the 1960s.  However they were never really able to reverse any of the changes brought about by that upheaval and now the majority of the people who initially opposed those changes are dead.  IMO, the GOP basically has to become a more moderate version of the Libertarian Party before it has nay hope of regaining Congress or the White House.

This is an excellent analysis of why the GOP is dying a slow, painful death.  I honestly don't know how the Republican party can reinvent itself.

[justfollowingtheelections]

2012 could be a rough year for the Democrats since they have far more seats running for reelection.

It all depends how long it takes the GOP to shed the "white" image without pissing off immigration activists.

Lest we forget there are a great many lilly-white regions where the GOP is doing quite poorly now. It certainly hurts them in many areas that they could do well in, but it's not like that is their problem everywhere.

Of, of course.  Being the "white party" doesn't mean you win all whites -- it just means your strangling yourself to a demographic that's slowly fading away.

So as far as "structural advantages" go, the Democrats have an inherent one that will slowly and slowly grow until the GOP can appeal to upwardly mobile Hispanics and Asians.

I think his point was that they're losing power for reasons that are deeper than the fact they can't appeal to minorities.  I also think it would be a mistake to try and appeal to minorities.  I don't think Hispanics or Asians voted for Obama because he's a minority, I think they voted for him and for the Democrats because their party is far more open minded and inclusive.  When you hear the Republicans accuse Obama of being a muslim (as if there's anything wrong with being a muslim) do you expect anyone who is in some way "different" than the average republican to vote for them?  I'm agnostic for example and I would never even consider voting for a party that doesn't respect my religious freedom (I do like Ron Paul but he's obviously not a mainstream Republican).
Pawlenty said it best recently.  The Republicans are marginalizing themselves by avoiding the latte-drinking regions (Northeast and the West Coast).  Obama on the other hand was not afraid to spread his message in conservative areas, and guess what, there were people who actually agreed with him and voted for him.  If you make sense people will listen, if you talk about religion-based values like DeMint does and claim you don't believe in evolution, people will laugh at you.
The Republicans are not only losing minorities, they're losing women too, they're losing the Jewish vote (despite all the talk about Obama being a muslim and Lieberman's campaign), they have no interest in the environment (I think it was Huntsman who said republicans should show more of an interest in the environment), which is an issue that appeals to most people, they're losing urban centers and most importantly they're losing young people.  Pretty much every university in the country is blue, even in the most red of states.
How could they possibly recover?

[Daniel Z]

Republicans probably won't retake the Senate until at least 2015, and it could easily be longer. The Democrats will have at least 58 seats next year and have a very good chance at adding a few Senate seats in 2010. The house is harder to predict  Republicans could retake it in 2012 or in 2030.

[justfollowingtheelections]

One more thing:  I know many Indian-Americans who laugh at the idea of voting for Jindal.  Picking someone just because he's a minority or woman hoping you will appeal to these groups, doesn't work and that was proven with the colossal failure of the Palin pick.

To appeal to minorities you have to be more inclusive and to be honest, I think it's too late for the Republicans to do that.  Even if they tried, I don't think the groups they would be aiming at would buy it.  Someone like Gary Johnson might have had some success because he's genuine, but he's so different than everyone else in the Republican party that he would never gain support.

[Lunar]

Running minorities for office is not necessarily valuable to simply win over minority votes.  It's to stop being branded as the old white guy's party and part of an image-shift.

[Meeker]

Part of the reason the GOP has been so successful at GOTV is that their base already congregates in an organized manner on a frequent basis: the churches. Unions and black churches help us somewhat, but a huge chunk of the Democratic base (white, middle to upper-class liberals) have no real organized structure or institution that the already are connected to for non-political reasons. This makes it much more difficult to get them to engage in voting bloc style political involvement.

Solution: we should start a cult.

(The Obama campaign doesn't count.)

[Padfoot]

Solution: we should start a cult.

(The Obama campaign doesn't count.)

Are you sure? 

[Meeker]

Solution: we should start a cult.

(The Obama campaign doesn't count.)

Are you sure? 

But really, to some extent, the Obama campaign was kind of effective in having the same affect as a church or a union might. Granted there weren't frequent and regular meetings, but nonetheless lots of white, middle to upper-class liberals felt like they were "a part of something", even if their involvement was as simple has having an Obama bumper sticker. Then once they felt like they were a part of the group it was much easier to take orders from the leader (such as "Give me money" and "Go vote").

[MK]

In 8 years while the republicans/ Karl Rove put all of their stock in evangelicals and religious voters as block.  The Democrats went more for the educated voters, and this election it payed off.  I remember  a day before the election a Evangelical friend of mine called me up and said " Bush sold us out".

With this said  its simple...  DON'T SELL OUT ON THE PEOPLE WHO HELPED GET YOU HERE.

It will last a long time if they follow that.

[dmet41]

Depends on how Obama, Reid, and Pelosi do. If the Republicans can recruit the right candidates I could see them taking back the Senate in 2012, but I think 2014 is more realistic. If Obama cant get the economy turned around by 2012, they will be back much sooner. And its not an issue of race or age, its an issue of competence.

[Lunar]

Remember that 2012 is the big year for Republicans.  It's what, 24 Democrats up for reelection and 9 Republicans?  Something like that.

2014 won't have nearly as many potential pickups.

[MK]

It really depends on how far left Obama takes things.

Then again if the far left ideals work... all bets are off.

I personally think the Republicans are done for a very very long time.  Everyday Bush sits in office and things continue to fall down around him - is more years of hell for the Gop.

I mean really the republicans are still running around blaming unions and working class people. 

[paul718]

I mean really the republicans are still running around blaming unions and working class people. 

I mean really, they're not. 

[Matt Damon™]

potentially forever if the republicans continue being the same type of party they're now

that said..

if the gop were to focus into more of a sam's club populist party and dropped both the business wing and the confederate flag-waving they'd probably be able to get back on their feet _fast_ by picking up socially conservative nonwhites

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

But it will only be a few years before FEMA opens up their secret concentration camps and we won't have to worry about social conservatives anymore. Sometimes I hope right wing conspiracy theories are true.

The problem with christian conservatives is that they believed the world is destined to be taken over by some scary anti-christ one world government thing. This warps their worldview and the last thing we need is these people (like Palin) in the white house. I don't know why right-wing terrorists like McVeigh even exist. Shouldn't they want this to happen so jesus will come back faster?