An autopsy of liberal Republicans

[Keystone Phil]

PA 13 (with twist)-  A lot of white cops primarily based out of NE Philly get shot by black suspects.  Either Bruce Castor or Dennis O'Brien play up to right wing populist sentiment and Allyson Schwartz runs for Senate.  In all likelihood:  O'Brien def. Josh Shapiro

Haha, Denny wouldn't run. He and Josh are great friends.

The rest of your analysis is interesting and not too far-fetched (the Dems wouldn't win the 16th against Pitts though).

[TeePee4Prez]

PA 13 (with twist)-  A lot of white cops primarily based out of NE Philly get shot by black suspects.  Either Bruce Castor or Dennis O'Brien play up to right wing populist sentiment and Allyson Schwartz runs for Senate.  In all likelihood:  O'Brien def. Josh Shapiro

Haha, Denny wouldn't run. He and Josh are great friends.

The rest of your analysis is interesting and not too far-fetched (the Dems wouldn't win the 16th against Pitts though).

Forgot about that.  Hmm, think Perzel would do it now that a lot of his power's gone?

[Keystone Phil]

PA 13 (with twist)-  A lot of white cops primarily based out of NE Philly get shot by black suspects.  Either Bruce Castor or Dennis O'Brien play up to right wing populist sentiment and Allyson Schwartz runs for Senate.  In all likelihood:  O'Brien def. Josh Shapiro

Haha, Denny wouldn't run. He and Josh are great friends.

The rest of your analysis is interesting and not too far-fetched (the Dems wouldn't win the 16th against Pitts though).

Forgot about that.  Hmm, think Perzel would do it now that a lot of his power's gone?

No

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

Answer: Comparing the Republicans of then to the Democrats of now, is absurd, for many reasons. First of all, in regards to a "cocky" attitude, there is no comparison. Bush won the Presidential Election in 2000 by a hair in Florida (if we're going to say that he won at all ) and lost the popular vote by half a million voters. In 2004, Bush won in a very close re-election and then went on to say:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2009/01/13/worst-bush-moments-10-i-earned-political-capital-and-now-i-intend-to-spend-it/

Where was Bush's surprise victories? Where did Republicans stun the electorate? What justifies, in your mind, saying the Democrats after 2004 were in terrible shape? I hear this alot, and it's absolutely wrong. More absurd is that cockiness or some sort of attitude on the side of the Democrats is somehow unjustified!

Compared now, to Obama, who won the largest raw popular vote victory in history, the largest share of the vote for a Democrat since 1964, the first candidate to split Nebraska's electoral votes, the sixth largest margin of victory ever, and the highest overall in 20 years. Not to mention all of this, he turned Indiana and Virginia blue for the first time in 44 years, and North Carolina for the first time since 1976. I'll get into the demographics later. He did all of this, mind you, "running while black" and against probably one of the best candidates the Republicans could have offered.

Who has more right to be "cocky" and talk about "political capital" to the American people? Especially since Barack has repeatedly attempted to bring Republicans to the negotiating table and bring them into his administration!

In terms of Senate elections, the worst the Democrats had been were down by 10 seats (55-45) in the Senate, in 1998 for a short time, and in 2004-2006. Democrats won four seats from the Republicans in 2000, turning the Senate into a tie just after being down 10 seats in the previous election, but after 9/11, political fortune favored the consistently weakening Republicans, and turned the tide, resulting in the strongest Republican majority in the Senate standing at a 10 seat majority once again, after the 2004 elections.

In 2006, Democrats did a massive turn around and won the Senate over with a one-seat majority (after losing a liberal Republican from Rhode Island and having his C4G primary challenger spending him away before the general election) and the in 2008, won massive in Senate elections to turn the majority to the Democrats even more, if Al Franken had been seated, to a 59-41, eighteen seat majority. Now that Arlen Specter is a Democrat, once Al Franken is seated this will bring the majority over the Republicans to 60-40, twice as strong as the Republican majority at it's strongest in 1998 and 2004.

And 2010 doesn't look good for the Republicans in the Senate races either.

When we look at the House of Representatives, the worst the Democrats ever were was a 30 seat advantage in the Republicans' favor in 2004. After 1994, (in which they only had a 26 seat majority afterwards) Republicans lost seats in the House in 1996, 1998, and 2000, but managed to turn the tide, again, after the 9/11 attacks and the Republican advantage they held on those issues (even though the Democrats used to be the anti-terrorism guys in the Clinton administration and Bush ignored the issue) and managed to pick up 8 seats in 2002 for an overall majority of 25 seats. In 2004, you only picked up three seats, and there were so many swaps and gerrymandering gigs in Texas, this election was arguably a wash.

Compare this to now, losing several seats in 2006 and becoming the minority while the Democrats wielded a 31 seat majority. After 2008, and Republicans losing more seats, Democrats now hold an almost 80 seat majority over the Republicans, and almost triple what the Republican majority was at it's strongest. It's arguable, and indeed, likely, that 9/11 only delayed the slow fall of the GOP from power that seemed to be in decline ever since 1996/1998.

You lost, yes, partly because of good years for Democrats. But let's not delude ourselves, good years and victories always go hand-in-hand, parties don't win en masse in "bad years" so the "good year defense" serves neither as a deflection or a refutation. Republicans lost because they're out of touch, because their policies failed and were rejected, because minorities turned against them and continue to turn against them as they grow in number, because young voters are turned off by many things the Republican Party has said and done. Republicans have been battling the demographics for a decade, and it's a losing battle if they keep using the same strategy.

Obama and Democrats have huge advantages among Hispanics. And as we all know, Hispanics are the fastest growing minority group in the U.S. Asians also voted for Obama by a wide margin, identify more as Democrats, and as referenced above, are the second fastest growing minority group. Young voters also identify more as Democrats over Republicans by a very wide margin, and Republicans stand to lose an entire generation if they don't kick it in gear.

You're losing key swing areas, as well. Virginia could very easily lean far more Democratic than it ever has in a half century. Iowa is turning more and more blue. Pennsylvania has lost 200,000+ Republicans to the Democrats. Democrats in Colorado just recently started outnumbering Republicans on the voter rolls after Republicans had been losing steam there since 2000.

AG also did a good job of showing the slow slide in NY and the New England area for GOP candidates that's been happening for awhile now. Here and here. People are now more liberal on healthcare, gay rights, drugs, and slightly more liberal on abortion rights.

So, what am I trying to say? We have much more of a right to be "cocky" than the Republicans ever did, the Democrats were never in a dire situation comparable to the Republicans and in fact, Republicans have been losing critical areas for a decade, and if the Republicans want to win, they cannot forever focus on the South, the hard right, and come to the table with no compromise. You lost not only because it was a "good year" for Democrats, not only because you just "over-reached," but because we rejected the policies of the Republican Party.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I also should mention (i meant to include it but completely forgot) that we're slowly becoming less and less religious with time, so the fundamentalist behavior is a bit of a turn off towards the growing number of secular voters or liberal protestants.

[Lunar]

Obama and Democrats have huge advantages among Hispanics. And as wel all know, Hispanics are the fastest growing minority group in the U.S. Asians also voted for Obama by a wide margin, identify more as Democrats, and as referenced above, are the second fastest growing minority group.

And the GOP massively rejected Bush's overtures to the group.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Another thing worth mentioning: after the supposedly disastrous 2004 elections, the Democratic party was still viewed positively by the voters. There was no great distrust or hate towards the Democrats. They just thought that Bush and the Republicans could handle better the issues of the day.

That's simply not the case with the Republicans now. The public hates them, period.
That alone makes their road out of the wilderness even more difficult. Because it's pretty hard to convince someone to vote for you when they have such a low opinion of you. And having divisive caricatures like Limbaugh, Cheney and Palin as your spokesmen isn't going to make things easier.

[Keystone Phil]

Yeah, remember after Watergate? The GOP was still beloved then. I guess we ought to start worrying about extinction.

[ag]

Yeah, remember after Watergate? The GOP was still beloved then. I guess we ought to start worrying about extinction.

You shouldn't worry about extinction - ain't happening. But I would worry about extinction in New England.

[Marokai Backbeat]

And being an endangered species or dying breed elsewhere.

[TeePee4Prez]

Yeah, remember after Watergate? The GOP was still beloved then. I guess we ought to start worrying about extinction.

You shouldn't worry about extinction - ain't happening. But I would worry about extinction in New England.

Ehh.  The GOP would never be extinct.  If it were close to happening, I'd probably change my registration because the country moved drastically more liberal than I.  Not happening.  Guess where I COULD see a GOP resurgance in New England?  Eastern MA.  You may think I'm crazy, but MA-6 and 10 have only have a slight Dem advantage and if the GOP goes more populist, watch that area.  I might even add upstate ME into the mix as well.  I still think the past 2 years were got extremely lucky in NYS in places such as NY 13 and 29.  True we have room to expand in PA (6, 15) and possibly NJ (2, 4, 7), but the GOP can expand in a variety of areas not only in western PA, but the South as well.   

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yeah, remember after Watergate? The GOP was still beloved then. I guess we ought to start worrying about extinction.

I can't see how your comparison works, unless there is another Reagan waiting in the wings AND Obama becomes a second Carter. Unless of course you think that Palin, Cantor and Sanford are going to fulfill the first condition.

And Watergate didn't damage the Republican party's core ideology. After all the Republicans were ready to vote for the impeachment of their fellow President.

What happened now is that both Bush and the congressional leaders screwed up things so much that the whole conservative ideology is discredited. And since they were so closely intertwined, the latter can't present themselves as a credible alternative to their Democratic counterparts.
  

[Keystone Phil]

Yeah, remember after Watergate? The GOP was still beloved then. I guess we ought to start worrying about extinction.

I can't see how your comparison works, unless there is another Reagan waiting in the wings AND Obama becomes a second Carter. Unless of course you think that Palin, Cantor and Sanford are going to fulfill the first condition.

There doesn't have to be a Reagan "waiting in the wings." Stars can appear at anytime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the core ideology isn't damaged here either. It's grossly overstated by the media and people that want us to fail anyway.

Whether it was ideologically based or not, the GOP was in far worse shape in 1974 (and even through until probably 1978) than it is now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Watergate hurt the entire GOP brand. Again, the idea that conservatism is as discredited as certain people want to believe is laughable. It's mostly wishful thinking.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Watergate had only a short term impact, honestly. Senate victories for the Democrats were not that substantial, and although Democrats racked up massive gains in the House, this was largely corrected a couple of elections cycles later.

Carter also didn't win election that handily either, it would have only taken, say, Ohio, to flip the election to Ford, and he only won by a couple percentage points. It damaged Republicans for awhile but it didn't have a particularly nasty effect on Presidential or Senate elections or a lasting impact in general.

Also, keep angsting over the comments here about the Republicans all you like, but you've addressed nothing that I said and prefer to attempt to mock it with "Oh no, we're going extinct!" comments.

[Keystone Phil]

Right...Watergate only had a "short term impact." Maybe - just maybe! - that will be the case after the 2006/2008 elections. No, silly me. Dems win forever!

The Senate victories for the Dems were "not that substantial?" Uh? The Dems had like 61 Senate seats from 1975-1977. Stick to anime, pal.

And, again, you point out how the Dems had massive gains in the House that were eventually corrected a couple cycles later. That's what some of us are saying will happen if two huge recent elections for the Dems!

Then again, I can't expect to take anything you say seriously. I'm still in awe of your "There have never been back to back anti-incumbent elections so the GOP can't win big in 2010." Whatever the hell that means...

[Marokai Backbeat]

Right...Watergate only had a "short term impact." Maybe - just maybe! - that will be the case after the 2006/2008 elections. No, silly me. Dems win forever!

Mocking, and not addressing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In '72 they had gained seats too, and later picked up a few more in '74. In '76 they didn't change at all. Senate elections are difficult to look to as an adequate depiction of the vengeance of the public because of the long terms and the staggered election cycles. Alot of seats for the Democrats wasn't all that unusual in that era anyway, and all of this was slapped backwards in 1980.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The gains from Watergate were mostly erased, but the Democratic Congress wasn't defeated, quite obviously. As I said, the Watergate scandal didn't really discredit the GOP in the long term (if Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon, he probably would have defeated Carter) as evidenced by the elections around that time.

Also you've still not address a sentence of what I posted a page ago, where I made a much more comprehensive amount of points fully explaining why I thought the Republicans were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Landslide Lyndon]

There doesn't have to be a Reagan "waiting in the wings." Stars can appear at anytime.

Reagan was a two term governor governor of the largest state and had a coherent ideology and set of policies molded after years of governing and campaigning. He didn't exactly appear out of nowhere.
Usually when someone appears out of nowhere he/she becomes soon a disaster (see Sarah Palin, Dan Quale).

And the core ideology isn't damaged here either. It's grossly overstated by the media and people that want us to fail anyway.

Whether it was ideologically based or not, the GOP was in far worse shape in 1974 (and even through until probably 1978) than it is now.

The core ideology IS damaged. That's what the public says. After 30 years of tax-cutting and deregulation we have the biggest financial crisis since 1929 and you think the GOP can still go out there and promote the benefits of Reaganomics? Tell that to Alf Landon.

And of course the public has also little appetite for fearmongering, saber rattling and minority/gay bashing, the other tenets of the Republican ideology. Especially the younger generation.  

The Republicans were in bad shape after Watergate but that was a Nixon orchestrated scandal which had nothing to do with conservative ideology. The president broke the law. He didn't enact policies that damaged the nation at large.

And as I mentioned the Republican leaders like Goldwater and Baker abandoned Nixon when his guilt became obvious. That saved their credibility with the voters in the long term.
Compare their stance with the fealty McConnel, Bhoener, Hastert, DeLay and the rest of the gang showed to Bush, even at his most egregious excesses. Hell, even now they prefer to defend torture rather than denounce him and his policies. How they expect to convince the people that they are not the party of Bush?  

And, again, you point out how the Dems had massive gains in the House that were eventually corrected a couple cycles later. That's what some of us are saying will happen if two huge recent elections for the Dems!

No, they won't come back because there has been a realignment. The Republicans aren't going to win back their seats at the Northeast, just like the Democrats never took back the seats they lost in the South in 1994.

[bullmoose88]

There doesn't have to be a Reagan "waiting in the wings." Stars can appear at anytime.

Reagan was a two term governor governor of the largest state and had a coherent ideology and set of policies molded after years of governing and campaigning. He didn't exactly appear out of nowhere.
Usually when someone appears out of nowhere he/she becomes soon a disaster (see Sarah Palin, Dan Quale).

And the core ideology isn't damaged here either. It's grossly overstated by the media and people that want us to fail anyway.

Whether it was ideologically based or not, the GOP was in far worse shape in 1974 (and even through until probably 1978) than it is now.

The core ideology IS damaged. That's what the public says. After 30 years of tax-cutting and deregulation we have the biggest financial crisis since 1929 and you think the GOP can still go out there and promote the benefits of Reaganomics? Tell that to Alf Landon.

And of course the public has also little appetite for fearmongering, saber rattling and minority/gay bashing, the other tenets of the Republican ideology. Especially the younger generation.  

The Republicans were in bad shape after Watergate but that was a Nixon orchestrated scandal which had nothing to do with conservative ideology. The president broke the law. He didn't enact policies that damaged the nation at large.

And as I mentioned the Republican leaders like Goldwater and Baker abandoned Nixon when his guilt became obvious. That saved their credibility with the voters in the long term.
Compare their stance with the fealty McConnel, Bhoener, Hastert, DeLay and the rest of the gang showed to Bush, even at his most egregious excesses. Hell, even now they prefer to defend torture rather than denounce him and his policies. How they expect to convince the people that they are not the party of Bush?  

And, again, you point out how the Dems had massive gains in the House that were eventually corrected a couple cycles later. That's what some of us are saying will happen if two huge recent elections for the Dems!

No, they won't come back because there has been a realignment. The Republicans aren't going to win back their seats at the Northeast, just like the Democrats never took back the seats they lost in the South in 1994.

You read my mind.  Then again, my mind isn't complex enough for those words, imagine those words as a pop up picture book.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The Republicans were in bad shape after Watergate but that was a Nixon orchestrated scandal which had nothing to do with conservative ideology. The president broke the law. He didn't enact policies that damaged the nation at large.

And as I mentioned the Republican leaders like Goldwater and Baker abandoned Nixon when his guilt became obvious. That saved their credibility with the voters in the long term.
Compare their stance with the fealty McConnel, Bhoener, Hastert, DeLay and the rest of the gang showed to Bush, even at his most egregious excesses. Hell, even now they prefer to defend torture rather than denounce him and his policies. How they expect to convince the people that they are not the party of Bush?

Thank you, that's what I was trying to say. You said it alot better than I did.

[Keystone Phil]

In '72 they had gained seats too, and later picked up a few more in '74. In '76 they didn't change at all. Senate elections are difficult to look to as an adequate depiction of the vengeance of the public because of the long terms and the staggered election cycles. Alot of seats for the Democrats wasn't all that unusual in that era anyway, and all of this was slapped backwards in 1980.

If anything, that proves my point even more.

Do you know how many seats belong to the Dems that aren't "supposed" to be with them now? Do you not listen when some of us say that they'll eventually be "slapped backwards" in the near future?

The climate will not always be like 2006/2008.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course it didn't discredit us in the long term just like how some of us don't think 2006/2008 will discredit the GOP in the long term. Fact of the matter is that the GOP was in worse shape in 1974 and they still rebounded.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've addressed it before in countless other discussions. It's the same old - the Dems weren't defeated like the GOP was, the GOP has to become the centrist party, etc. I have a philosophical disagreement.

Reagan was a two term governor governor of the largest state and had a coherent ideology and set of policies molded after years of governing and campaigning. He didn't exactly appear out of nowhere.
Usually when someone appears out of nowhere he/she becomes soon a disaster (see Sarah Palin, Dan Quale).

Usually? You gave two examples and Quayle was never a major party leader.

What you said didn't negate a word I said. I never said Reagan was new on the scene (you have a problem with logic. This has happened before); I said that just because Reagan wasn't new doesn't mean we need someone "not new" to lead us back.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're polling the public just months after something that was deemed a crisis. Show me similar polls two or three years from now and I'll say that the ideology itself is weak.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow. Young people not liking conservative philosophy? Color me shocked!

The rhetoric in that quote is obviously hilarious and really not worthy of any further response.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it hurt a party. Nixon hurt the GOP more than Bush did. Whether it was based on ideology doesn't matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans didn't abandon Bush? Uh...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha, ok, we'll see.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Do you know how many seats belong to the Dems that aren't "supposed" to be with them now? Do you not listen when some of us say that they'll eventually be "slapped backwards" in the near future?

The climate will not always be like 2006/2008.

And I've told you repeatedly the Democrats are very likely to lose about 5-10 seats in the House in 2010, yet you act like I say they'll win even more.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've addressed it before in countless other discussions. It's the same old - the Dems weren't defeated like the GOP was, the GOP has to become the centrist party, etc. I have a philosophical disagreement.[/quote]

Wow, you must have just had every discussion before, because you never have to address anything! If it's that easy, you could at least point out a few things I posted on the other page.

[ag]

Yeah, remember after Watergate? The GOP was still beloved then. I guess we ought to start worrying about extinction.

You shouldn't worry about extinction - ain't happening. But I would worry about extinction in New England.

Ehh.  The GOP would never be extinct.  If it were close to happening, I'd probably change my registration because the country moved drastically more liberal than I.  Not happening.  Guess where I COULD see a GOP resurgance in New England?  Eastern MA.  You may think I'm crazy,   

I do not. Boston suburbs are now, probably, the most Republican part - definitely of the state, possibly of New England. Boston itself, of course, and parts of the rural New England are quite another matter.

Once again, when I am talking about possible GOP extinction in New England I do not believe that in this case the Dems would be the cause or the beneficiaries. My point is that Republicans are now failing in their performance of the opposition duties: there are simply not enough of them to be effective. More importantly, they might be vulnerable to a challenge for the role of the "second party". Vermont already has the Progressives, there are independents emerging in other places - and, undamaged by the Republican label, these newcomers might be effective. There is clearly political space that Republicans seem to be bad in occupying. A local opposition is essential - and, unless Republicans shape up, somebody else might push them aside locally or even regionally.

To sum up, I am confident, long term, that New England will have a two-party system. I am just not certain, what will be those two parties.  

[Landslide Lyndon]

Usually? You gave two examples and Quayle was never a major party leader.

What you said didn't negate a word I said. I never said Reagan was new on the scene (you have a problem with logic. This has happened before); I said that just because Reagan wasn't new doesn't mean we need someone "not new" to lead us back.

Quale was Vice-President of the United States. Usually a steping stone to the presidency. If a sitting Vice-President isn't considered a major party leader then I don't know who is.

And no, politics ain't easy, so that a newcomer can come out of nowhere and lead a party back to power. If it was so simple then JFK, Reagan and Obama wouldn't be something special.

You're polling the public just months after something that was deemed a crisis. Show me similar polls two or three years from now and I'll say that the ideology itself is weak.

If you want to delude yourself, go ahead. Just think for how many years the Republicans were paying the price for the Great Depression and Democrats for Vietnam and Civil Rights.

Wow. Young people not liking conservative philosophy? Color me shocked!

The rhetoric in that quote is obviously hilarious and really not worthy of any further response.  

The young people liked it plenty in the 80's. Go figure.

And your non-response is pretty telling about your inability to defend the current Republican ideology.
Unless of course you think that cries about how ''Democrats are making us less safe'', ''Obama appeases Chavez'' and ''Gay marriage is going to destroy western civilization'' are more appropriate rhetoric than mine.

But it hurt a party. Nixon hurt the GOP more than Bush did. Whether it was based on ideology doesn't matter.

That's the most delusional and fact-free assesment I have seen at this board. Not to mention that you contradict yourself, because if Nixon had really damaged the GOP more than Bush, then how the hell did they manage to return to power after only four years?

Republicans didn't abandon Bush? Uh...

If they wanted to cut the chain and ball named Bush, then they could come out after the torture reports were publicized and say: ''We denounce these tactics which are in clear violation of national and international law and in direct contradiction with Republican ideals. The former President commited a serious error by authorizing  them''.

Instead they fully embraced Bush and Cheney and they passionately defended the virtues of torture and ...Jack Bauer. Not to mention that they demamded that no prosecution to be made even for non-political persons like Bybee and Yoo.

If that's abandoning Bush, then the Republicans have an even more serious perception problem than I anticipated. 

[ag]

I think this is also instructive. MA and RI legislatures are, of course, unhealthily monopartisan. But some of the other chambers are not far behind. And the Rep bleeding is nearly continuous nearly everywhere. Dems are, of course, in majority in every chamber now, with 2/3 majorities in MA House, MA Senate, VT Senate, CT House, CT Senate, RI House, RI Senate and NY Assembly (8 out of 16 chambers), and Republicans are under 1/3 also in VT House. Note, that in 2000 Dems had a 2/3 majority only in 4 chambers, and Republicans were in majority in 2 chambers with another one tied.
 
Massachusetts House

2000 131D 27R 1I
2002 136D 23R 1I
2004 139D 20R 1I
2006 141D 19R 0I
2008 143D 16R 1I  

Massachusetts Senate

2000 33D 7R
2002 34D 6R
2004 34D 6R
2006 35D 5R
2008 35D 5R

Vermont House

2000 77D 67R 6O
2002 69D 74R 7O
2004 83D 60R 7O
2006 93D 49R 8O
2008 95D 48R 7O

Vermont Senate

2000 17D 13R
2002 19D 11R
2004 21D 9R
2006 23D 7R
2008 23D 7R

Connecticut House

2000  96D 55R
2002  94D  57R
2004  99D  52R
2006 107D 44R
2008 114D 37R


Connecticut Senate

2000 19D 17R
2002 21D 15R
2004 24D 12R
2006 24D 12R
2008 24D 12R

Rhode Island House (note reduction in the number of seats)

2000 86D 13R 1I
2002 63D 11R 1I
2004 59D 16R 0I
2006 60D 15R 0I
2008 69D   6R 0I

Rhode Island Senate (note reduction in the number of seats)

2000 42D 8R 0I
2002 32D 6R 0I
2004 33D 5R 0I
2006 33D 5R 0I
2008 33D 4R 1I

Maine House

2000 79D 71R 1I
2002 80D 67R 4I
2004 76D 73R 2I
2006 89D 60R 2I
2008 90D 59R 2I

Maine Senate

2000 20D 14R 1I
2002 18D 17R 0I
2004 19D 16R 0I
2006 18D 17R 0I
2008 20D 15R 0I

New Hampshire House

2000 152D 241R 1I
2002 119D 281R 0I
2004 147D 253R 0I
2006 238D 161R 0I
2008 225D 175R 0I

New Hampshire Senate

2000 12D 12R
2002   6D 18R
2004   8D 16R
2006 14D 10R
2008 14D 10R

New York Assembly

2000  98D 51R
2002 103D 47R
2004 105D 45R
2006 108D 42R
2008 109D 41R

New York Senate

2000 25D 36R
2002 25D 37R
2004 27D 35R
2006 29D 33R
2008 32D 30R

Considering that state legislatures are normally a  major source of candidates for higher office, it is not a good sign for Reps overall as well. Dems have 1026 state legislators in the region, Reps 465. Without the oversized NH House it is even more striking: 801D, 290R

[Dan the Roman]

A point to be made. The decline of the NE Republicans has not been due to the party running more Conservative candidates. The Party did everything its power to save Chafee who didn't even back their nominee, has made no real moves against Snowe and Collins until recently, and is running Rob Simmons in Connecticut. Furthermore I think the party would be grateful for a Ed Brooke.

The real problem is that the increasing regionalization of the national party is making liberal voters less willing to vote for any republican no matter how liberal. An article in Bay Windows(the Boston Gay and Lesbian Newspaper) endorsing the Democrat Steve Lynch in the 2001 special election for the 9th District in MA comes to mind. Though Lynch opposed even civil unions, while the Republican, State Senator Jo Ann Sprague supported them and had a 100% rating from gay rights groups, they endorsed the Democrat because it was important to have a democratic majority.

As long as people in New England care more about having a democratic majority than they do about the candidates and identity of their congressman and Senators, it doesn't matter who the GOP runs or how liberal they are. They will still lose.

In this sense I understand why Conservatives think it would be better to target places that want the  GOP in the majority but have Democratic representation rather than chase fool's gold in NE.

This is interesting, because it sounds as if you completely agree with Torie on the diagnosis but disagree on the cure.

I don't disagree necessarily with his cure. I just think it will be ineffective. There are larger forces at work, and if the defeats of Chaffee, Shays, and Smith reveal anything, its that individual candidates matter less than the national forces. I don't think Ed Brooke would win in MA today if he were to come back to life and run again.