Is the GOP Doomed?

Ron Brownstein notes that historically an unpopular incumbent president does drag his party down even if he's not on the ballot:

Unpopular departing presidents, though, have consistently undercut their party in the next election. Democrats lost the White House in 1952 and 1968 after Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson saw their approval ratings plummet below 50%. Likewise, in the era before polling, the opposition party won the White House when deeply embattled presidents left office after the elections of 1920 (Woodrow Wilson), 1896 (Grover Cleveland), 1860 (James Buchanan) and 1852 (Millard Fillmore). The White House also changed partisan control when weakened presidents stepped down in 1844 and 1884. Only in 1856 and 1876 did this pattern bend, when the parties of troubled presidents Franklin Pierce and Ulysses S. Grant held the White House upon their departure.

It should be pointed out that 1856 is a not very encouraging precedent for the Republicans. In essence, the opposition Whig Party had collapsed (garnering only 21.5 percent of the vote) but the Republican Party hadn't yet consolidated its position (garnering only 33 percent of the vote), throwing the election to the Democrats by default. I'm fairly confident that the Democratic Party isn't in the midst of a Whig-style collapse.

Comments

Only a Bush attack on Iran, followed by a decision by Clinton/Obama/Edwards to support the attack could split the center-to-left vote like that.

It's not impossible, though.

Posted by otto | July 19, 2007 4:49 PM

and, 1876 was a deeply controversial election-i believe the democrat got the majority of the popular vote, and there was much accusation of corruption, that was only settled by the north compromising by agreeing to essentially end reconstruction in exchange for the south allowing the republican presidential candidate to take office.

Posted by jamie | July 19, 2007 4:49 PM

1876 is also a highly unusual year. The Democratic challenger Tilden won the popular vote and quite possibly the electoral college, but the Republican Hayes successfully contested the twenty swing votes, and aided his cause with a backroom deal to end Reconstruction. Suffice it to say, it's not a particularly encouraging example for the Republicans.

Posted by Philly | July 19, 2007 4:55 PM

Suffice it to say, it's not a particularly encouraging example for the Republicans.

Why not? They won through similar shenanigans in 2000 ... ;)

Posted by Anderson | July 19, 2007 5:04 PM

There was no e-mail, blast fax, or cable TV in 1876. The Radical Right makes far better use of these tools than the Democrats (who don't even have a unified message they can blast out), their adherents listen and act on the messages that are blasted (and dog whistled) in this manner, and they are more intense about getting out and voting. In fact they are far more intense about writing LTEs and to Congressmen; if there is a groundswell of disgusted Democrats why aren't they making themselves heard?

In any case, when push comes to shove the evangelical Christian churches will take a look at the Democratic candidates then order their flocks to vote for the Republican candidates whoever they may be. This, along with the structure of the Senate, will prevent any Republican implosion.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | July 19, 2007 5:12 PM

If only we didn't face such a daunting array of Dem candidates, we might have a chance... But maybe history will repeat itself?

Maybe (Hillary) Clinton will win in '08, and the Dems will retain control of both Houses of Congress. And that will give Clinton the confidence to tack far enough to the left that the country resoundingly votes the Dems into the minority in both the House and the Senate. Then maybe Clinton tacks back to the center-right and we get a chance at some real reforms.

An electorally chastened Dem might have a better shot at reining in the costs of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, since she won't be pilloried by the MSM for doing so. Like an Israel-Palestinian peace deal, the broad outlines are already there: progressive indexing of benefits on Social Security, gradually raising the minimum age for Medicare, as we are already doing for Social Security, etc.

Posted by Fred | July 19, 2007 5:14 PM

This kind of analysis is always stupid. There have been less than 60 presidential elections ever. Every four years something unprecedented happens.

jenny

Posted by jenny | July 19, 2007 5:25 PM

Yes, Fred, and everyone knows REAL reform comes from the center-right.

And a hypothetical Republican-controlled Congress would SURELY cooperate on reasonable reform and not grandstand a succession of highly-divisive bills her way.

Posted by Daddy Love | July 19, 2007 5:26 PM

Dems all the way in 08

After the economic and foreign policy disaster the House will be Repub by 2010

Divided government is the best

And Jenny correctly calls 'em like she seems 'em
Everything does not have a ("an" if you're a twit) historical parallel

Posted by Jozef | July 19, 2007 5:32 PM

As a partisan, I have to agree that it will be tough for the GOP to win the Presidency in 08. Third terms for the incumbent party are quite rare.

However, I am convinced that if the Dems nominate either Hillary or Obama, they will both lose and the GOP will win not only the White House but also will retake the House because voter turnout in GOP districts will lead to the loss of the Dems who won in 06.

And the reason for their losing is not because America is too racist or sexist to elect a black or a woman, but because they are very liberal Senators who will be rejected for their ideology.

You heard it here first.

Posted by Chicounsel | July 19, 2007 5:35 PM

Let's see: Democrats control the presidency and COngress. What do they do?

End the war in Iraq. Pass a stem cell funding bill. Pass voting rights for DC. Pass an ethics reform bill. Pass a bill that provides a path to citizenship for more immigrants. Pass a bill implementing universal health care.

And Americans will be so disgusted that they passed these highly popular measures that they will vote them out of office.

Yeah, that's happening.

Posted by Daddy Love | July 19, 2007 5:37 PM

I somehow imagine Republicans wishing for a terrorist attack in the US that will make a frightened public turn back to their big scary daddies in the GOP.

Tell us you're not hoping for that "economic and foreign policy disaster," Jozef.

Posted by Daddy Love | July 19, 2007 5:42 PM

Fred's so stupid eh thinks Hillary is a liberal!

Posted by Rob | July 19, 2007 5:48 PM

> And Americans will be so disgusted that they
> passed these highly popular measures that they
> will vote them out of office.
>
> Yeah, that's happening.

That's pretty much the evidence, yeah. Bill Clinton (who I would argue was quite conservative) is a prime example - he got the nation's finances cleaned up and institutions retooled for the Internet era and the Democrats were rewarded by having W Bush elected to loot the place. I expect no less in 2016 (or even 2012); Iraq and the dolschtosslegende will be the the fulcrum.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | July 19, 2007 5:54 PM

Daddy Love,

You may be too young to remember this, but Hillary Clinton's plan to fully socialize medicine wasn't popular enough to pass in the early 90's, even with Dems in control of both Houses of Congress. You certainly aren't too young to remember the fate of the recent 'comprehensive' immigration bill. But your comment was helpful nonetheless, in that it was an example of the sort of overconfidence a Dem President, backed by a Dem Congress, might feel in '09.

Posted by Fred | July 19, 2007 5:59 PM

Cranky

I would argue that this was a reaction to the polarizing effect of the Republican wars against Clinton in the 1990s in which the electorate became ever more polarized. I don't want to neglect the what I think of as Millennial Effect in which a LOT of otherwise sane people get apocalyptically religious and basically lose their better judgment.

These effects are waning, in part due to the plain-to-see disatrous effect of Republican governance and in part due to the recession (into the past, I mean) of the Millennium.

I think that we can see 2000 and even 2004 as a real aberration. Not that a Republican cannot win, but for right now the polarized electorate has more or less picked a side, tried-and-true Republican memes have lost a great deal of their effect, and the new ones are not gaining ground.

The dolschtosslegende didn't work after Vietnam either.

Posted by Daddy Love | July 19, 2007 6:01 PM

sort of overconfidence a Dem President, backed by a Dem Congress, might feel in '09

Fred, have you thought about working for the Hillary campaign? It sounds like you could be a really big help for them.

(This reminds me of the talk about the unity ticket the Dems should have nominated in 04: Bush/Cheney.)

Posted by Barbar | July 19, 2007 6:03 PM

I'm too sexy for this blog...

Posted by Right Said Fred | July 19, 2007 6:14 PM

Fred,

Even odds that I'm older than you.

Large issues take time to mature and gain the public awareness needed to implement large changes. The corrosive effect of huge budget deficits were discussed during Reagan's ill-fated terms, but they didn't become a potent campaign issue until 1992. So the next President took on budget reform (which arguably had a lot more to do with the '94 election results than health care reform), and it worked until GOP irresponsibility plunged us headlong into an additional $3-4 TRILLION in national debt.

Universal health care is gaining the public awareness and public support it needs, even in the face of what will be 24/7 Republican fearmongering.

Yeah, people are so against receiving health care that they'll vote out those who provide it. Uh-huh.

The immigration bill was an abortion of a bill that had enough for everyone that it pleased no one. Americans support a path to citizenship for immigrants.

Posted by Daddy Love | July 19, 2007 6:16 PM

And once the Democrat ends the Iraqi occupation their popularity will be assured.

Posted by Daddy Love | July 19, 2007 6:19 PM

No more Brown Americans!

Posted by The Republican Party | July 19, 2007 6:22 PM

> And once the Democrat ends the Iraqi
> occupation their popularity will be assured.

Ever been recruited into a job specifically to clean up an unpleasant problem? I have. After you succeed you will either be fired outright or the survivors who you saved will unite to destroy you and drive you out. As far as I can see American voters operate on the same principle.

Particularly if Hillary is the one, but regardless of who, if a Democratic President cleans up after the Iraq situation the Democrats will pay the price for 20 years.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | July 19, 2007 7:59 PM

Don't know how many of you are old enough to remember the 1980 election and its aftermath, but to me it feels like we are about to see a mirror-image repeat.

At the time, Ronald Reagan was seen by the DC Democratic establishment used to GOP moderates like Ford as a scary right-winger. "But it's OK," they reassured themselves, "he's to old and too far right to actually win." Boy were they wrong.

Once Reagan got in and started filling his administration with the likes of Ed Meese and James Watt, Democrats slapped each other on the back and told each other that with all the rightwing overreach going on, it'd be a cinch for the Dems to get the White House back in '84. Jimmy Carter went so far as to pronounce the Reagan administration as an historical aberration, with the implication that what they were up to couldn't last.

In spite of this, however, a strange sea change came over political culture. Far from being chastened by their encounter with power and the inevitable difficulties of government, the new right wing administration began pushing the whole zeitgeist in a conservative direction. Deliberately confronting and then destroying PATCO resulted not in a big labor backlash, but instead to a new era of management dominance. And with the help of conservative southern democratic Senators and congressmen, much of the administration's legislative agenda passed easily.

By 1984, the economy finally started turning around, and traditional liberal democrat Walter Mondale received an electoral pasting worse than the one McGovern got. In spite of this it took the Dems one more landslide loss in '88 to figure out that the times had definitely changed and they couldn't win with another northern liberal.

Today I think we're set for a reverse of this story. The GOP, like the Dems in the late '70's, has been in for so long they have no idea how rotted their political underpinnings have got. Once the new Dem president is in, I think the Republicans are going to be astonished at how completely the political landscape will change, and it'll take them several election cycles to figure out that wingnuttery is discredited and they will need to come up with something else if they ever want to hold power again.

Posted by jimBOB | July 19, 2007 8:10 PM

if a Democratic President cleans up after the Iraq situation the Democrats will pay the price for 20 years.

I doubt this is true. More likely they are going to remember for the next 20 years that putting a Gooper into the oval office started the war, and that as long as he stayed there the war couldn't be stopped.

I think despite their best efforts the dolchstosselegende gambit won't work.

Posted by jimBOB | July 19, 2007 8:24 PM

Re: That's pretty much the evidence, yeah. Bill Clinton (who I would argue was quite conservative) is a prime example - he got the nation's finances cleaned up and institutions retooled for the Internet era and the Democrats were rewarded by having W Bush elected to loot the place.

Um, Bush was not elected in 2000, if by that you mean "popularly elected".

Re: You may be too young to remember this, but Hillary Clinton's plan to fully socialize medicine wasn't popular enough to pass in the early 90's

Hillary had no plan to "fully socialize" healthcare. Please do not come here and parrot blatant Limbaughian lies like that. Hillary's health plan had much to dislike and criticize, but it was not full bore "socialized medicine", for which see Canada's single payor, or Britain's NHS. Hillary's purchasing cooperatives were nothing of the sort, and indeed Hillary was much criticized on the Left for that very reason. And by the way Congress never came remotely close to voting on Hillary's healthplan, which leaves open the possibiliyty that Congress failure to act at all played a serious role in the Democrat's losses that year. Indeed, that a more logical way to look at it than saying people voted the Democrats out for not doing something the people did not want them to do. Note however that Bill Clinton, who backed the plan, was handily reelected two years later.

Posted by JonF | July 19, 2007 9:02 PM

Hillary Clinton's plan to fully socialize medicine

It'll be a great historical joke on the Republicans if, in rejecting Hillary's half-measure part-public part-private health care proposal in the 90's, they end up paving the way for full-on single payer in the 2010's.

Posted by jimBOB | July 19, 2007 9:11 PM

I would say that, while the GOP is in serious trouble for the next few election cycles, expecting a Whig style meltdown is silly. Maybe if our political system was still as free as back in the 1800's, but today they've passed so many 'reforms' intended to hobble third parties that there isn't any way, any how, that a major party, however wounded, is going to be displaced.

Further, it's hardly in the Democratic party's interest, (And I take it as a given that you're going to have full control of the elected branches for at least 4-6 years.) that a mortally wounded GOP be replaced by another, less compromised party. So the Democrats will actually protect the GOP from being displaced, if there's any threat of it happening.

OTOH, I'm pretty sure that you'll be back to parity, at best, in under a decade, unless you take the opportunity to make the country a de facto one party state by more 'reforms'; There just isn't any way you're not going to over-reach, you don't even grasp what would constitute over-reaching.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | July 19, 2007 9:38 PM

1876 is also a highly unusual year. The Democratic challenger Tilden won the popular vote and quite possibly the electoral college,

Let's remember that the "popular" vote victory in 1876 was a result of official local government terrorist acts denying the right of African Americans to vote in Florida and other states.

The reason the electoral college commission gave the electoral votes to the Republicans was the gross violations of the 14th and 15th amendment rights of non-white southerners. Unfortunately President Hayes didn't clean up the abuse with a strong right-to-vote policy. He turned his back on his strongest supporters and conceded in weakness to the system that became Jim Crow.

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2007 10:20 PM

My 5th great-grandfather State Senator Elijah "General Lige" Combs (Whig- Perry Cty, KY) lived just long enough to see his party go to pieces and the country nearly to follow.

If the United States had been more like east Kentucky there would have been a negotiated settlement to the slavery issue. And you'd be able to marry your first cousin without incident, and not have to pay tax on liquor.

Posted by Linus | July 19, 2007 10:43 PM

I don't think either party should feel cocky right now. The President's approval rating is in the mid 30's, and the Congress is at 14%.

Note that the Republican Congress was at 24% on the eve of the 2006 election. Right now, no one is happy with anyone.

Posted by James Robertson | July 19, 2007 10:50 PM

"There just isn't any way you're not going to over-reach, you don't even grasp what would constitute over-reaching."

Well said. Inside the echo chamber, it's easy for lefties to delude themselves about where America is on the political spectrum. Dems forget that in '06 with the wind of an unpopular war and a series of embarrassing GOP scandals at their back, they still needed to run a number of conservatives (Casey, Webb, etc.) to win their majorities. I think the '06 elections were good for the GOP in the long run for two reasons. First, because it got some conservatives elected as Democrats, who will come in handy down the road, and second, because we got rid some deadweight -- J.D. Hayworth, the pederast in FL, etc.

Posted by Fred | July 19, 2007 11:00 PM

It probably hinges on whether Bush and Rove can resist turning the 2008 GOP convention into a War on Terror victory lap despite the blatant lack of anything resembling victory. Indeed, they would probably be trumpeting victory while also trumpeting the great existential terrorist threat we face after 7 years of Bush leadership.

I wouldn't put it past Bush to demand some kind of Triumphal procession that matches his inflated self regard.

Posted by Jon H | July 19, 2007 11:54 PM

"Ever been recruited into a job specifically to clean up an unpleasant problem? I have. After you succeed you will either be fired outright or the survivors who you saved will unite to destroy you and drive you out. As far as I can see American voters operate on the same principle.
"

I hate that it's true, but I have a lot of sympathy with Cranky's position here. The bottom line is that it's downhill all the way for the future US --- the good times are over, period. Iraq will be the gift that keeps on giving for the next five years at least, the various accumulated debts (personal and federal) aren't going to go away, various timebombs such as NCLB, the current supreme court, medicare part D, and the hollowed-out military have already been planted. Peak oil and Global Climate Change will be a few years closer.

Whoever takes over in 2008, if they are at all adult, will have to spend most of their time saying no and delivering bad news. We all know how well Americans respond to that. And, all the time, as they do so, we'll have the GOP sniping away, telling us how their magic medicine of "cutting red tape", "getting government out of the way", "leaving it to the market", "trusting in the american people", and "asking ourselves what would Jesus do" will solve the problems painlessly.
It takes Americans no more than about a year to forget the political past.

Posted by Maynard Handley | July 20, 2007 12:13 AM

"It probably hinges on whether Bush and Rove can resist turning the 2008 GOP convention into a War on Terror victory lap..."

Considering that Bush administration officials have already characterized this as a Cold War-style "long war", this is unlikely. It's also unlikely Bush will have a tremendous amount of influence over the '08 convention, particularly if his approval level then is similar to what it is now.

"The bottom line is that it's downhill all the way for the future US --- the good times are over, period."

This was a common sentiment during the 1970's, and there was more to support it then: stagflation, double digit interest rates, 70% marginal income tax rates, lines at the gas pump, crime, decaying cities, fears of global cooling and a new ice age, fear The Soviet Union, fears of nuclear winter, etc. Things were so depressing few thought to load up on Dow stocks when the Dow was trading at 700, let alone buy any stock in a risky little start-up like Intel.

"Whoever takes over in 2008, if they are at all adult, will have to spend most of their time saying no and delivering bad news."

Good thing Dem candidates are preparing their voters for this, by not promising expensive new entitlements such as free health care for everyone, before they figure out how to pay for existing entitlements like Medicare.

Posted by Fred | July 20, 2007 12:45 AM

How does Fred think he has any credibility, after he spews obvious lies like claiming that Hillary had a plan to fully socialize healthcare? Does he think he starts every comment as a blank slate?

Posted by Steve | July 20, 2007 1:18 AM

nor is 1876 all that reassuring, since the Republicans stole the election that year (and also partly got it by compromising -- letting the Democrats disenfranchise African Americans in exchange for Democrats letting the Republicans have the White House).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_B._Hayes#Election_of_1876

Of course, the Republicans could try to steal the election in 2008 (third time's a charm).

Posted by Robert Waldmann | July 20, 2007 1:27 AM

The GOP ought to be loving the present situation, but they probably aren't. That's because of the idiot that presently occupies the White House, and the neanderthal who occupies Blair House (his vice-president).

Nevertheless, the country is primed for a Republican presidency. We know that because all the indicators put forth by the media say that, and we know that the media are never wrong.

ABC News reports that the republican candidates are moving smartly ahead of their democrat rivals in every thing that we can think of. No bias here, no siree.

NBC reports that the republicans have a 120 point lead in the elections in the southeast and the northwest, and thusly there is no need to cover those races.

CBS will not announce the outcome of the races until the Republicans win. That' a final. Whenevewr the final results come in, and the Republicans are victorious, then we'll announce it. Or else we'll show that 1958 movie again.

Posted by james Hogan | July 20, 2007 2:15 AM

Re: I would say that, while the GOP is in serious trouble for the next few election cycles, expecting a Whig style meltdown is silly.

Agreed. The correction has already begun at the lower levels. Here in Florida our new GOP governor, Charlie Crist, has rejected the wingnut agenda and has instead been following a fairly populist one. His approval ratings are in the 70s. As the saying goes, nothing succeeds like success. A chastened GOP will move back toward the center and perhaps start trying to capture the Lou Dobbs vote.

Posted by Jonf | July 20, 2007 6:29 AM

"and perhaps start trying to capture the Lou Dobbs vote."

That is, perhaps, the one respect in which this political enviroment is like the Whig meltdown: In the most massive issue of their time, (Slavery then, illegal immigration today.) both major parties, then and now, are on the same side. Rendering one of them redundant.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | July 20, 2007 7:12 AM

> OTOH, I'm pretty sure that you'll be back to
> parity, at best, in under a decade, unless you
> take the opportunity to make the country a de
> facto one party state by more 'reforms'; There
> just isn't any way you're not going to over-reach,
> you don't even grasp what would constitute
> over-reaching.

Generally one would think that a libertarian or small-government Republican would consider "not even grasp[ing] what could constitute over-reaching" to be a good thing in a political party and its politicians and appointees. It is amusing to see their true beliefs on this come out into the open: the naked grab for power is its own justification. Which shows how utterly corrupt the Republican Party and the entire conservative movement really is.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | July 20, 2007 9:40 AM

Re: In the most massive issue of their time, (Slavery then, illegal immigration today.)

Immigration is not the most massive issue of our time. Sure, it engenders some passions, but compared to the passions (and outright violence) the slavery question ignited a no-holds barred immigration debate would like a tea party in a home for retired nuns. I certainly do not expect to see some modern-day John Brown dragging pro-immigration advocates out of their homes at night and murdering them, nor do I expect Tom Tancredo to beat John McCain within an inch of his life in the halls of Congress (as Rep Brooks did to Sen. Sumner over the slavery question). And I would personally put our disastrous foreign policy, our out-of-control executive, global warming and healthcare and even the deficit well ahead immigration as issues go.

Posted by JonF | July 20, 2007 1:06 PM

Seems to me that '68 is the closest case, though of course the successor issue was frame a bit differently. And '68 was really close, with the two Democrats running winning a clear majority. The Democrats didn't collapse until '72, and by then LBJ and his unpopularity were long gone. (And of course the Nixon victory itself was short-lived and long-gone by '76.)

Posted by Thomas | July 20, 2007 1:14 PM

Let's stop looking for historical analogues and start looking for a way to crack open this moribund two-party system and get some real democracy up in this motha-motha!

Here's a hint: use the internets!

Posted by Gregorio | July 20, 2007 1:26 PM