Did the GOP slide begin in the 1990s?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

The future of the party is moderate libertarianism, as even young Republicans are socially moderate-liberal. This will win them back the suburbs, and make them competitive with Hispanics (assuming the anti-immigrant rhetoric leaves with the social conservatism).

To the contrary: The GOP is becoming progressively less libertarian. Mike Huckabee won the youth vote in the Republican primaries, after all.

The more you ally yourself with the right-wing the more you sell libertarianism short. Heed that.

Don't look just at the Republican primaries, look at the rhetoric in congress. Anti-spending, anti-big government, pro-free market, and they have softened their tone on foreign policy (though they could do better), and social issues are taking a back seat, these all indicate they're moving in a libertarian direction.

Why? I don't give a damn what a political base says; I care about what they do. And Huckabee roundly won the "up-and-coming" Millennial Republican generation. The temporary rhetoric of job-seekers left over from the '94 Revolution is less-than-meaningless when trying to analyze medium-long term trends. 

Exit polls of youth vote from early primaries (top three candidates shown):

Iowa
Huckabee: 40%
Romney: 22%
Paul: 21%

Wyoming
No exit polls

New Hampshire
McCain: 27%
Paul: 19%
Romney: 17%

Nevada
Romney: 50%
Paul: 19%
McCain: 13%

South Carolina
Huckabee: 35%
McCain: 28%
Thompson: 15%

Florida
McCain: 30%
Romney: 23%
Giuliani: 19%

Notice that Huckabee only performs well with the youth in the south, but is slaughtered everywhere else. In the west, Florida, and Northeast, Romney and McCain are preferred by significant margins. This is consistent with the voting patterns of the overall results.

You are of course right but don't be surprised when Einzige gives you an irrational response or attacks you.

[DemocratsVictory2008]

It began in 1998 when they failed to gain anything despite Clinton's woes and the 2000 election, 9/11 kept the party afloat for a few years. 2004 was a good year because those southern senate seats all opened up but the ominous sign for the party was the Colorado senate seat that Salazar picked up.

[Sandy Price]

My first post here and I may need some help going from one thread to another.  I can only talk about when I left the Republican Party.  Please understand that I voted at 21 for Ike but had worked on many Republican Campaigns.  I learned about the party from my grandfather who was a raving, ranting fiscal conservative.  Our political actions grew around the Santa Monica area of California.  Santa Monica was a beach city of no particular fame except the old time actors who lived along the beaches.  I was third generation and grew up in the shadow of the studios most famous directors, producers and stars. 

I went to school with other daughters of the great Industry and I was always amazed to see how few Democrats were part of this culture.  I stayed with the party until 1988 when Bush ran after Reagan's 8 years.  I did not trust any member of the Bush family as they were not considered authentic as far as the GOP was concerned.  The old man and his father held all kinds of appointed positions in the GOP but did not sparkle or actually make any corrections or represent ethics.  I worked for Reagan after the Goldwater loss and we lived across the street from Duke Wayne who made his estate available for fund raisers. 

Reagan was a natural.  I am unable to write more and assume I have reached my limit.

[Sandy Price]

To continue.  The Platform at the time of Reagan was for a limited government and individual freedoms.  Almost from the beginning of Bush 41s term, he went after a one world order governance which meant he would take us into the middle east  trying to force a democracy with the Muslim nations.

I left the GOP and joined with Perot.  He had the right solutions for our failing economics. 

I want to come home to the GOP but it has disappeared right under my nose.  I supported Ron Paul in several of the Presidential elections but there is no chance in hell of electing a man who has most of the answers. 

In now way do I support government issued social legislation.  To me, it is a diversion to bypass the needed work done for the education flaws, bigotry, racism and homophobia.  I want to get this out in the open where I can be accepted as part of this site or not. 

[Scam of God]

I think you give Reagan too much credit. His understanding of "personal freedoms" is almost Orwellian in its lack of correlation to the real meaning of the phrase.

[Rob]

I think you give Reagan too much credit. His understanding of "personal freedoms" is almost Orwellian in its lack of correlation to the real meaning of the phrase.

There's a good bit in Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot where Al Franken relates how, in 1975, Reagan declared his opposition to mandatory motorcycle helmets because it was "an infringement on personal liberty"... and later the same day stated his opposition to decriminalizing marijuana because it "causes brain damage." Par for the course with Republicans.

[Scam of God]

I think you give Reagan too much credit. His understanding of "personal freedoms" is almost Orwellian in its lack of correlation to the real meaning of the phrase.

There's a good bit in Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot where Al Franken relates how, in 1975, Reagan declared his opposition to mandatory motorcycle helmets because it was "an infringement on personal liberty"... and later the same day stated his opposition to decriminalizing marijuana because it "causes brain damage." Par for the course with Republicans.

The day will come - and soon - when the Republicans no longer co-opt the language of liberty to dupe genuinely well-meaning people into supporting their Statist policies. What's left for you to do is to make sure there's a Party that can accommodate them when that happens.

[Sandy Price]

Living in California for many generations, I remember when Reagan was Governor and the first Governor in the USA to sign on to Roe v Wade.  A group of my friends took a bus from the San Fernando Valley to Sacrament to give him a standing ovation.  You see, I knew the Reagans and heard them speak on individual freedoms.  They wanted no part of the Federal or State Government in their personal social lives.  That is what I meant when the platform called for individual freedoms.  It is no longer the case.  Our individual freedoms have been labeled sins and the religious right wants us all to accept the faith and be made clean.  This I cannot do and refuse to even discuss it. 

I have no political party and to be honest about it; it is killing my political spirit.  I have nothing to work for or look forward to.  I am old, cranky and tired. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Living in California for many generations, I remember when Reagan was Governor and the first Governor in the USA to sign on to Roe v Wade.  A group of my friends took a bus from the San Fernando Valley to Sacrament to give him a standing ovation.  You see, I knew the Reagans and heard them speak on individual freedoms.  They wanted no part of the Federal or State Government in their personal social lives.  That is what I meant when the platform called for individual freedoms.  It is no longer the case.  Our individual freedoms have been labeled sins and the religious right wants us all to accept the faith and be made clean.  This I cannot do and refuse to even discuss it. 

I have no political party and to be honest about it; it is killing my political spirit.  I have nothing to work for or look forward to.  I am old, cranky and tired. 

I do feel for your position, being without a party. However I must disagree in that I find limited Gov't is impossible w/o some sort of social control. Either you have an overbearing Gov't or a strict traditionalist society governed by moral values. The altenative is in my view anarchy.

[phk]

It basically began sometime in 2005.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Many people are blaming current Republican problems on the Bush administration, but looking at election results a case could be made that they began as early as 1996.

1996: Clinton wins easily, Dems pick up seats in the House and win the popular vote. The GOP maintains control due to an unusually large number of Dem retirements.

1998: Republicans lose seats in the House, unprecedented in a midterm election when the other side controls the presidency.

2000: Bush loses the popular vote but wins due to a series of once in a lifetime events in Florida. The GOP's majority in the House is reduced to 9 and the Senate is tied. The Senate goes to the Democrats after Jeffords complains that the party is too conservative.

2002: The Republicans make modest gains in the House and Senate due to redistricting and the war on terror.

2004: Bush wins re-election by the smallest margin ever for an incumbent despite the war on terror. Republicans gain Senate seats in the South but make only modest gains in the House.

2006: Republicans lose control of the House and Senate.

2008: Obama wins by 7 points, Republicans are reduced to 1970s levels in the Senate and 1993 levels in the House.

Totally agreed. The reason of this huge decline being in my opinion GOP's choice toget more and more radically conservative, whereas dems became very moderates during Clinton's presidency. When republicans will understand that "moral majority" has never existed and that they are more and more seen as crazy reactionaries, then they could have a chance to regain the White House.

[Sandy Price]

So to keep control over the masses has been a dream of many?  Have we lost our self control to the point that we must wait for our orders on how to act, vote, run for office?

In 1992, Clinton did not win but rather than Bush 41 lost.  We in America are still voting for the lesser of two evils.  We think in terms of extreme reactions.  We, as voters are not academically able to vote rationally when we work to destroy the other party rather than replace it with our own. 

When I realized that the election in 2000 would go according to the religious right I saw the end of our Constitutional Republic and the start of pure Democracy where the people write and interpret American laws.

I would prefer total anarchy to government controls over our private lives.  The problem here is that we must have a single government to be obeyed.  The idea of a second force in D.C. is not acceptable.

[Scam of God]

Living in California for many generations, I remember when Reagan was Governor and the first Governor in the USA to sign on to Roe v Wade.  A group of my friends took a bus from the San Fernando Valley to Sacrament to give him a standing ovation.  You see, I knew the Reagans and heard them speak on individual freedoms.  They wanted no part of the Federal or State Government in their personal social lives.  That is what I meant when the platform called for individual freedoms.  It is no longer the case.  Our individual freedoms have been labeled sins and the religious right wants us all to accept the faith and be made clean.  This I cannot do and refuse to even discuss it. 

I have no political party and to be honest about it; it is killing my political spirit.  I have nothing to work for or look forward to.  I am old, cranky and tired. 

I do feel for your position, being without a party. However I must disagree in that I find limited Gov't is impossible w/o some sort of social control. Either you have an overbearing Gov't or a strict traditionalist society governed by moral values. The altenative is in my view anarchy.

This is the difference between the libertarian and the Republican philosophy: the libertarian, an individualist, understands intuitively that the individual it not a horse; he can be trusted generally to run in whatever direction he wants without going out too far and breaking down the fence, because most people have the basic psychological faculties that will prevent them from going out too far. The Republican, on the other hand, because he is the slave of superstition and mythology, treats the individual more like a cow, who has to be corralled at every which way.

Furthermore, the Republican's so-called 'need to prevent anarchy' is quite selective. Abortion leads to anarchy? Gay marriage leads to anarchy? Drug use leads to anarchy? And yet - and yet being against all these things does not? How, now? As far as I understand, anarchy is a state in which one individual can force himself on others, either physically or metaphorically, without being prevented from doing so. Everytime the Republican gets his way on social issues, that's exactly what happens.

[Derek]

No. The Clinton was reelected because he ran against Dole. The media carried the dems in 1998 due to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In 2000 if you want to believe that Al Gore really won the popular vote believe that. Talk to the ppl in the panhandle of FL who couldn't vote cuz their polls closed too early. The Republican slide began with HURRICANE KATRINA. 2008 was because of Bush's numbers. We are living in an era where Washington will be going back and forth. It's not so much anti incumbent as it is anti establishment.

[Bo]

No, I wouldn't say so. Republicans just got lucky in the 1980s due to Jimmy Carter's screwups. If the Democrats would have nominated a better candidate and ran a better campaign, 1988 would have been much closer and possibly a Democratic victory. In fact, the GOP recaptured both houses of Congress in the 1990s and the Presidency in 2000, and so the GOP controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress in 2001 for the first time since 1955. I wouldn't say that was a decline for the GOP.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Actually, the slide occured in 2005 when Bush (fils) and Republicans in Congress enraged their base with:

a.) out of control spending, and
b.) promoting amnesty.

[Sbane]

No. The Clinton was reelected because he ran against Dole. The media carried the dems in 1998 due to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In 2000 if you want to believe that Al Gore really won the popular vote believe that. Talk to the ppl in the panhandle of FL who couldn't vote cuz their polls closed too early. The Republican slide began with HURRICANE KATRINA. 2008 was because of Bush's numbers. We are living in an era where Washington will be going back and forth. It's not so much anti incumbent as it is anti establishment.

Gore won the popular vote. In Florida Bush won (probably). I wish the recount was finished though. Couldn't have hurt could it?

[Bo]

Actually, the slide occured in 2005 when Bush (fils) and Republicans in Congress enraged their base with:

a.) out of control spending, and
b.) promoting amnesty.

Bush began to spend out of control in 2001 and began promoting amnesty in 2004.

[phk]

I still stand by 2005 as the beginning of the GOP decline. Maybe more precisely Nov 2005.

[J. J.]

I still stand by 2005 as the beginning of the GOP decline. Maybe more precisely Nov 2005.

I think it was the start of the second term.  You had Schaivo, followed up by Katrina.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I still stand by 2005 as the beginning of the GOP decline. Maybe more precisely Nov 2005.

I would say 2005 was the beginning of the end for the Bush era GOP. Bush should have never attempted Social Security reform with only 55 senators. That political defeat humbled him and brought his approvals down to 50%.

Then Katrina and Harriet Miers occured. And so by The time he gave his SOTU in Jan 2006 his approval rating was hovering around 41%. Whenever Bush tried to push something, something else negative occured that undid him. Katrina helped undo Harriet Miers. In early 2006 he pushed a divisive immigration bill while simultaneously Iraq began to collapse after the bombing of that Mosque. People will really trust you to keep your promise to secure the borders after the failures of gov't in Katrina and Iraq. The house passed 4244(or whatever it was called) and the Senate passed McCain-Kennedy nothing came out of conference and the rest is history. Mission: Divide GOP- accomplished. Iraq continues its decline and becomes the central issue in the election. Corruption is the second issue. The GOP had weathered the Abramoff scandal and had survived. It was the Foley scandal that brough this issue back up again. Other side issues that helped bring the Dems to power included, the minimum wage, the Donut hole, and Pay as you GO (What happened to that? They waived it after six months, I watched it on C-span).

In 2007, Bush stands firm on Iraq and we watch as his poll numbers tank to 30%. He tries to push Immigration reform again and gets rejected outright in the Senate, the House never takes it up. Iraq finally turns around but the maintstream media doesn't give it the coverage that it should. Then in late 2007 the economy begin to weaken and fell into recession in Dec 2007(reported to have occured in mid 2008 with GDP revisions). The economy begins a "modest recession" untill September and October when the economy goes itno complete downward spiral giving Obama the election he had done everything possible to throw away until September's collapse.

[Vepres]

I still stand by 2005 as the beginning of the GOP decline. Maybe more precisely Nov 2005.

I would say 2005 was the beginning of the end for the Bush era GOP. Bush should have never attempted Social Security reform with only 55 senators. That political defeat humbled him and brought his approvals down to 50%.

I would add that it was around this time that people began to realize that the Republicans were running up huge deficits despite promising otherwise. Sure, they got away with it early on because of the the war on terror, but as 9/11 faded more and more into the past, people cleared their heads.

[Sasquatch]

Just skimming through this thread, I'd say and I remember thinking this 2 years after the fact, George W. Bush presidency ended in August 2005.

- Schiavo in March
- Failed Social Security Reform
- Iraq War Well Into A Downward Spiral
- GOP Sex Scandals
- Terrible Response to Hurricane Katrina


I think its safe to say that 9/11 bought Bush and company a few years to run wild. If it hadn't been for that day in September 2001, Bush would have been a one term president.

[Bo]

I think its safe to say that 9/11 bought Bush and company a few years to run wild. If it hadn't been for that day in September 2001, Bush would have been a one term president.

What makes you so sure about that? The economy was in good shape in 2004 and unemployment was pretty low. The only thing that would have been going against Bush would have been the low job creation numbers, and I don't think very many people would have cared about those if the unemployment rate was low.

[Derek]

The slide is somewhat fictitious too. People want the other party to run the house and senate.