An autopsy of liberal Republicans

[Nym90]

 Analysis: An autopsy of liberal Republicans

By Alan Silverleib
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Question: How many years since the Civil War have both U.S. senators from Pennsylvania been Democrats?

Answer: two. The state sent Democrats Francis Myers and Joseph Guffey to the Senate between 1945 and 1947.

If you knew that, you understand just how far the Republican Party has fallen in its ancestral homeland of the Northeast, a decline that was underscored by Sen. Arlen Specter's recent decision to leave the party.

Specter's decision to join Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey on the Democratic side of the aisle raises a host of questions about a party that, after years in power, suddenly finds itself hemorrhaging voters and ceding vast swaths of electoral terrain.

First and foremost, who killed the Rockefeller Republicans? What happened to Specter's breed of fiscally conservative, socially progressive, temperamentally moderate Northeastern officeholders? And if they can be resurrected, should they?

Liberal to moderate Northeastern Republicans once were as much a part of the political landscape as today's liberals from Massachusetts. Now, they live mostly in the history books. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine may be the last ones standing in today's Senate.

The Northeast region sealed the deal for Abe Lincoln in 1860. It broke the back of William Jennings Bryan's populist Democrats in 1896. It kept the Republicans in power for all but 16 years between the Civil War and the New Deal. Specter's home state was the only large industrial state to back Herbert Hoover over Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.

Even after FDR started tilting the region to the Democrats, it produced a slew of moderate GOP officeholders, postwar leaders like New York's Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits, Pennsylvania's Richard Schweiker and John Heinz, Maine's Margaret Chase Smith and William Cohen, Massachusetts' Leverett Saltonstall and Ed Brooke, Connecticut's Prescott Bush and Lowell Weicker, Rhode Island's John Chafee, New Jersey's Clifford Case and Maryland's Mac Mathias.

So what happened?

In short, notes CNN Polling Director Keating Holland, there has been a slow but steady Northern backlash to the GOP's four-decade-old "Southern strategy." Race and religion brought Southern whites into the Republican Party but also began pushing out a lot of affluent Northern suburbanites. Those socially moderate voters formed the core of the Rockefeller Republican constituency.

Major political realignments don't happen overnight, however. A lot of disaffected Dixiecrats continued voting Democratic in state and local elections for a long time, even after being wooed by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

Old habits die hard, and Southern Democratic parties slowed their decline by continuing to nominate candidates more in step with voters in their states.

The same story, only in reverse, held true in the Northeast. Thirty years ago, after Nixon but before the Reagan Revolution, the 11 Northeastern states stretching from Maryland to Maine still sent 37 Republicans to the House of Representatives and another 10 to the Senate. Today, those same states have 18 Republican representatives in the House and three in the Senate.

The numbers are more stark in New England and New York. New England no longer has a single GOP representative in the House. The 29-member New York House delegation has only three Republicans.

And what about Specter's home state?

Since Nixon implemented the Southern strategy in 1968, the Republican presidential nominee's share of the popular vote in Pennsylvania has been smaller than his share of the nationwide vote in every election.

The erosion of the Rockefeller Republican vote is clearly seen in election returns from Specter's political base, the moderate Philadelphia suburbs.

In 1976, Gerald Ford lost Pennsylvania to Jimmy Carter while carrying suburban Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery counties. In 2008, John McCain lost Pennsylvania to Barack Obama while getting crushed in those same counties. McCain lost Delaware and Montgomery counties by more than 20 points.

Those same suburbs are now represented by only one Republican congressman, moderate Rep. Jim Gerlach, who has been elected in each of the past four cycles by the skin of his teeth. Increasingly precise gerrymandering to create safer districts for incumbents has taken a bad situation for moderate Republicans and made it worse. Safe Republican districts are conservative districts, and conservative districts don't nominate moderates.

When Specter announced his defection to the Democrats, he noted that more than 200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans changed their registration to become Democrats in 2008. Specter knows that the bulk of those switches came from the moderate suburbs.

After barely beating conservative challenger Pat Toomey for the 2004 GOP nomination, he could read the writing on the wall for the 2010 primary.

Now that Specter's gone to the other side, should Pennsylvania Republicans nominate a conservative in 2010?

Not if they want to have a good chance to win. A new Quinnipiac poll of Pennsylvania voters suggests that Specter would beat Toomey, a former congressman, by 20 points in a general election contest. Former Gov. Tom Ridge, a social moderate in the Rockefeller Republican mold, trails Specter by only 3 points, a statistical dead heat.

It's not impossible for more conservative candidates to win statewide in the Northeast -- former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum won two terms before losing in 2006 -- but it is significantly harder and happens much less often.

Conservative candidates in step with today's Southern-dominated GOP are out of step in the Northeast. They also represent a distinct ideological minority on the West Coast, much of the Midwest and, increasingly, the Southwest.

Of course, GOP strategists are right when they say the party has been left for dead before, only to spring back to life.

Barry Goldwater's 1964 blowout loss was followed by major Republican gains in the 1966 midterms and Nixon's triumphant return in 1968. The party's 1974 Watergate debacle laid the groundwork for Reagan. And Bill Clinton's 1992 win paved the way for the GOP's first House majority in forty years.

But what may make the fallout from 2008 different is the clear regional nature of the GOP's setback. The wipeout in the old Republican heartland has been a long time coming.

At the same time, the Republicans have lost some ground in the South and the West because the Democrats have been willing to nominate candidates who differ with national party leaders on hot button social issues like gun control and abortion. They also haven't been afraid to throw a few fiscal conservatives into the mix. Winning national coalitions are rarely unified on all of the big issues.

The GOP now has to decide whether it wants to copy the Democrats' strategy in the Northeast or whether it would rather circle the ideological wagons. The decision may dictate the shape of American politics for years to come.

[Torie]

Somebody has to figure out how the GOP can fashion a reworked coalition that is slightly more than 50% of the electorate. It will not be easy.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Unless this wing is resurrected, the GOP is done in the Northeast. We may see a generational shutout, much like the Republicans were shutout in the South.

[Keystone Phil]

So now we can't win the NE without liberal Republicans? Even moderates aren't good enough? Wow.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, we definitely won't win because of the polls a year and a half out. I love these analysts.

[Brittain33]

So now we can't win the NE without liberal Republicans? Even moderates aren't good enough? Wow.

The headline says "liberal," but the article talks about both liberals and moderates as if they were one group.

[Keystone Phil]

So now we can't win the NE without liberal Republicans? Even moderates aren't good enough? Wow.

The headline says "liberal," but the article talks about both liberals and moderates as if they were one group.

Oh, ok. Thanks for the clarification.   I only skimmed over it.

Anyway, stupid on their part.

[Torie]

Guys, it may be that absent unusual circumstances, no Pubbie of any stripe can win a federal race in the toxic zone at this point because of the national image of the GOP.  It may be that the  image of the party to the nation at large must be readjusted for there to be a resurrection in the Northeast.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So now we can't win the NE without liberal Republicans? Even moderates aren't good enough? Wow.

House delegation of New England:
22 Democrats
0 Republicans

Throw in New York and you get:
48 Democrats
3 Republicans

[Keystone Phil]

So now we can't win the NE without liberal Republicans? Even moderates aren't good enough? Wow.

House delegation of New England:
22 Democrats
0 Republicans

Throw in New York and you get:
48 Democrats
3 Republicans

I know, I know. Every election cycle will be like 2006 and 2008.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So now we can't win the NE without liberal Republicans? Even moderates aren't good enough? Wow.

House delegation of New England:
22 Democrats
0 Republicans

Throw in New York and you get:
48 Democrats
3 Republicans

I know, I know. Every election cycle will be like 2006 and 2008.

You don't really expect to pick up many of those seats in 2010 do you?

You just had a chance back in March and you still failed.

[Landslide Lyndon]

So now we can't win the NE without liberal Republicans? Even moderates aren't good enough? Wow.

House delegation of New England:
22 Democrats
0 Republicans

Throw in New York and you get:
48 Democrats
3 Republicans

I know, I know. Every election cycle will be like 2006 and 2008.

Well, every cycle wasn't like 1994, but the Democrats still haven't recaptured the South.

[Keystone Phil]

So now we can't win the NE without liberal Republicans? Even moderates aren't good enough? Wow.

House delegation of New England:
22 Democrats
0 Republicans

Throw in New York and you get:
48 Democrats
3 Republicans

I know, I know. Every election cycle will be like 2006 and 2008.

You don't really expect to pick up many of those seats in 2010 do you?

In early 2005, did you expect to pick up many southern and other traditionally Republican seats in 2006?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know and the climate will be the same. You're right.

So now we can't win the NE without liberal Republicans? Even moderates aren't good enough? Wow.

House delegation of New England:
22 Democrats
0 Republicans

Throw in New York and you get:
48 Democrats
3 Republicans

I know, I know. Every election cycle will be like 2006 and 2008.

Well, every cycle wasn't like 1994, but the Democrats still haven't recaptured the South.

No but they've done very well down there recently and in other conservative areas.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

2008:



2006:



The Democratic gains were clearly mostly not in the South. In 2006 only 4 pickups were in the South, three of which were due to very flawed incumbents (DeLay, Foley and Charles Taylor) and one of which is hardly part of the cultural South. 2008 saw only 5 pickups in the geographic south, one of which is obviously not the cultural South no matter how much benconstine wishes (the NOVA seat), one of which is also mostly not the cultural South and was due to a very flawed incumbent (Feeney's)

[minionofmidas]

A comparison with 1992 would have been a better reply, BRTD.

[Keystone Phil]

Democrats also gained in other conservative areas. I said that in my other posts.

The point remains that you won a lot of seats you "weren't supposed to win" and a lot of marginal seats thanks to terrible climates for the GOP. You never entertain that things could get just as bad for you guys. You used a Special election in NY in March as proof that the climate won't be bad (just because some people thought the GOP would win the seat back). You're impossible.

[Torie]

Democrats also gained in other conservative areas. I said that in my other posts.

The point remains that you won a lot of seats you "weren't supposed to win" and a lot of marginal seats thanks to terrible climates for the GOP. You never entertain that things could get just as bad for you guys. You used a Special election in NY in March as proof that the climate won't be bad (just because some people thought the GOP would win the seat back). You're impossible.

Some of those seats are not coming back anytime soon, unless the political dynamic changes - a lot.

You know, the GOP used to have house seats, and state legislative seats, in the Bay area of California. The last one went away about 15 years ago or so. They are never coming back probably. Now the core GOP areas outside more rural ones in California are becoming marginal. The erosion is steady and systemic, and the trend continues even over the ups and downs of individual election cycles. If one extrapolates all of this for another 10 years, what one finds at the end is that California will look just like New York - almost all blue.

The amazing thing is how high a percentage (and a growing percentage) of the educated upper middle class tends to think of the GOP as haunted by the mentally challenged and prejudiced, not to mention incompetent (about which as to the latter point the remaining true blues also agree).

The sad truth it appears is that the GOP leadership just can't seem to  face up to something so painful with which for it to grapple. It is just better to count on it all going away,  with Dem excesses restoring the laissez les bon temps roulez halcyon days of the Republican party.  The "fix" as it were is to buy and lot of lottery tickets and count on getting lucky.

Does anyone here really disagree with me on any of this?  If so, have at it! Put the mouthy lawyer in the place where he belongs.

[ag]

NY House Delegation:

111th Congress 26D 3R
110th Congress 23D 6R
109th Congress 20D 9R
108th Congress 19D 10R
107th Congress 19D 12R
106th Congress 19D 12R
105th Congress 18D 13R
104th Congress 17D 14R
103rd Congress 18D 13R

Notice, Republicans only net gain of one seat here in the 1994 landslide, but it was still quite creditable back then.  Pretty monotonic decline otherwise - though, of course, it has only become a wipe-out now.

New England House Delegations
111th Congress 22D 0R 0I
110th Congress 21D 1R 0I
109th Congress 16D 5R 1I
108th Congress 16D 5R 1I
107th Congress 17D 5R 1I
106th Congress 16D 6R 1I
105th Congress 16D 6R 1I
104th Congress 14D 8R 1I
103rd Congress 14D R8 1I

Once again, no net bump in 1994 (some seats changed hands, but Dems, actually, managed to gain in places that year). A near monotonic decline becoming a rout now.

[Nym90]

Good point, AG. The comparison between today and the 103rd Congress is instructive as the size of the Democratic majority is almost identical now to what it was then. Yet the GOP still had a sizeable presence in the Northeast at the time, and the Dems still held a majority of Southern seats overall. It's not just all about political environments; as you point out, 1994 did not bring the groundswell for the GOP in the Northeast that the South did. Likewise, Dems made many more gains in more liberal areas in 2006 and 2008 than they did in the South, where they are still overall much in the minority.

[TeePee4Prez]

So now we can't win the NE without liberal Republicans? Even moderates aren't good enough? Wow.

House delegation of New England:
22 Democrats
0 Republicans

Throw in New York and you get:
48 Democrats
3 Republicans

Don't ever get cocky.  I could easily see PA 3, 4, 10, 12, and 17 switching to the GOP as they stand now given a future open seat and friendlier GOP environment.  I would also be afraid to sacrifice Pat Murphy to run for the Senate because it's now the most Republican area of the PA suburbs and the GOP has a deep, willing bench to replace him.  PA 11 if the old dope Kanjo runs against possibly Lou Barletta would be interesting as well, but would likely stay Dem.   True, PA 6 has been lucky for Gerlach, but other than that, PA 15 would be our only other expansion option.  Plus we had a close one in NY-20.  It is vitally important we don't just coronate Tom Corbett for this very reason.

PA Summary:

Dems can expand: 6, 15.  16 Maaybe with future exurban expansion and a good redistricting.

GOP can expand: 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17.  Don't turn back on 7 and 13 either.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's 1992 for the record:



Darkest color is 80-100% of the seats, then 60-80%, below that is a majority with over 50%, and the stripes are a tie.

So yeah, the point is obvious and clearly made. And Phil, the only reason I mentioned the NY seat was it was one of the states I was referring to. How does a seat in New York relate to the South in any way?

So now we can't win the NE without liberal Republicans? Even moderates aren't good enough? Wow.

House delegation of New England:
22 Democrats
0 Republicans

Throw in New York and you get:
48 Democrats
3 Republicans

Don't ever get cocky.  I could easily see PA 3, 4, 10, 12, and 17 switching to the GOP as they stand now given a future open seat and friendlier GOP environment.  I would also be afraid to sacrifice Pat Murphy to run for the Senate because it's now the most Republican area of the PA suburbs and the GOP has a deep, willing bench to replace him.  PA 11 if the old dope Kanjo runs against possibly Lou Barletta would be interesting as well, but would likely stay Dem.   True, PA 6 has been lucky for Gerlach, but other than that, PA 15 would be our only other expansion option.  Plus we had a close one in NY-20.  It is vitally important we don't just coronate Tom Corbett for this very reason.

PA Summary:

Dems can expand: 6, 15.  16 Maaybe with future exurban expansion and a good redistricting.

GOP can expand: 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17.  Don't turn back on 7 and 13 either.

...Where was Pennsylvania mentioned in that post?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And 2008 by the same scale for comparison:

[12th Doctor]

Specter is not fiscally conservative.

While the article has some points, I and many, many others in PA on both sides, personally chaff under how this is being portrayed as some monumental event in ideological politics.  Specter is nothing to get excited over.  He is doing this because he is an utterly self-serving hack.

[12th Doctor]

Question:  Do you guys realize that, with all this gloating, you are essentially making the same mistake that the GOP was making in 2004?  Everytime you guys mock A National Party No More you are making the same mistake.

There hasn't really been a realignment yet.  You guys haven't changed the theater of battle at all.  The coalitions aren't the much different.  You didn't win by changing the game.  You won because the GOP massive over-ran itself, and then ran out of gas.

The satisfied reaction of most hard-core Democrats is more a mockery of fate, and a greater demonstration of hubris than what we were doing 4 years ago.

With the way Democrats are talking, if you be easy to forget that, in the worst possible year for a Republican, our candidate still received 47 percent of the vote and did so with 10% of all Bush voters staying home from the polls ("our loyal base" my ass).

[Landslide Lyndon]

And 2008 by the same scale for comparison:

The most interesting conclusion reached by looking those two maps is how polarized the nation has become.

[??????????]

Question:  Do you guys realize that, with all this gloating, you are essentially making the same mistake that the GOP was making in 2004?  Everytime you guys mock A National Party No More you are making the same mistake.

There hasn't really been a realignment yet.  You guys haven't changed the theater of battle at all.  The coalitions aren't the much different.  You didn't win by changing the game.  You won because the GOP massive over-ran itself, and then ran out of gas.

The satisfied reaction of most hard-core Democrats is more a mockery of fate, and a greater demonstration of hubris than what we were doing 4 years ago.

With the way Democrats are talking, if you be easy to forget that, in the worst possible year for a Republican, our candidate still received 47 percent of the vote and did so with 10% of all Bush voters staying home from the polls ("our loyal base" my ass).

Shhh...let them have enough rope.