Did the GOP slide begin in the 1990s?

[Vepres]

The loss of surburbia has destroyed the party.  Suburban votes used to make us viable in MI, PA, IL, CO, CA, OR and WA.  Try to remember that THESE USED TO BE OUR STATES.

We've lost the surburban vote and we've failed to account for the demographical movements in those states too. Even NY we were competitive for years because we used to win huge margins with surburban voters who were socially moderate and fiscally conservative.

The Republicans are starting to be competitive in suburbs again. I like what I've been hearing from the real leaders of the party (governors, senators, the NRCC), people say they must choose between being principled or big tent. I say,  be a principled big tent. If somebody disagrees with you on 20%, but could win in Connecticut, you should support them. At the same time, you don't campaign against deficits and big government only to grow both the deficits and the government.

[Vepres]

It's very worrisome though because you had people like Santorum (gone thank god), DeMint, Cornyn and Brownback running the show.  These people have no clue that they are the definition of the problem and not the solution.

It's very concerning because to a lot of northerners, the party is seen as blatantly intolerant and ignorant.  Whether true or not, the perception, which is always reality is that the party is run by religious fascists and when you have people like DeMint, Delay and others that consistently make ignorant remarks about human nature, etc, it looks very bad and unfortunately, having gone to college down south, you have some very ignorant people and uneducated human beings that revere the GOP nowadays.  How to reverse that, I have no idea, but it's a big problem.

For every DeMint or Palin you have a McCain, a Romney, or a Collins.

[Vepres]

In twenty years, when the history of the Great Realignment is being written - that is to say, when political historians look back to try to find the precise moment in history when an opening was made that allowed economically liberal populists like Huckabee to capture the Republican Party - they will say that Bill Clinton made it happen.

More to the point, it was Bill Clinton - a southerner (but not a Southerner) - who solidified the cultural South for the Republicans, and forced into the Republican camp a political base wholly alien to it previously: those whose political lineage could be traced to the theocratic populism of William Jennings Bryan, ignoramuses whose sole political desire is to see Augustine's socialistic City of God made manifest in the United States. By cutting these people loose from the Democratic coalition, the New Democrats traded them with a still-small, but growing, civil libertarian bloc that is waiting for a Democratic candidate to come along and speak their language.

At the same time, the populists have infested the Republican Party to the core, and the first President to be elected out of this newly-grafted wing was George W. Bush. He appealed, like no Republican before him, to those groups who are defined chiefly by their alienation from modern society: the heritors of the agrarian yeoman, whose socialism is a socialism of the fields and a socialism of the spirit.

In the future, we will consider 1996 to be the underlying cause of a political reversal that will eventually end up in a repeat of 1896.

First off, Einzige your analysis of the American political cycle is more indepth than a vast majority of people in this nation. Barack Obama is not the future of the Democratic party, he's the past. He is the last harrah of progressivism for the Democratic party. I will go as far as to say that the rise of the New Democrat wing was born as a result of the election of Ronald Reagan. As much credit as Reagan got for helping bastardize the Republican party with his enormous deficit spending, he would inevitably be given credit for the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, a wing that would swear to fight for the civil liberties the Religious Right swore to defeat. The fate of the Democratic party was sealed with the election of William Jefferson Clinton in 1992, the year that the New Democratic wing of the party took control. The widespread public outrage at incidents like Waco, the assault weapons ban, the failure of HillaryCare, among other things, were the beginning of the end of the progressive wing. The election of Barack Obama will not bring forth the resurgence of the progressive wing, rather it will be the death knell of it. The economic nationalism of this administration (Buy Murican), the draconian gun laws it will try or will enact, the even more draconian drug laws it will enforce, the continuation of the Patriot Act, and other things can only inevitably result in the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, led by people like Russ Feingold and Kristen Gillibrand, who will guarantee undisputable civil liberties for the American people. These will be the freedom fighters of the new era in American politics, idealistic warriors who fought tooth and nail for the defense of all civil liberties and not just some. They will swear off the decades of blind allegiance to the power of big government that their predecessors bowed down to.

The GOP, being obsessed with the preservation of state, would ulitmately become the statist oppressor to the libertarianism of the Democratic Party. The hatred of individual rights brought on by George Bush, the disregard for spending brought on by Ronald Reagan, and outright condemnation of individuality brought on by Mike Huckabee, would help in the rise of the batsh**t insane socially conservative economically populist wing of the GOP. Seig Heil!

This may sound batsh**t insane, but we'll see who is laughing (or crying) in twenty years.

What happens if the growth of Gov't under Obama drives the Libertarians from the Democratic party? I don't see this happening especially now with the backlash against Obama's spending giving a new birth to fiscal Conservativism with the GOP and with upcoming leaders like Mike Pence and Paul Ryan I don't see how a Populist Republican party is feasible. The only way that would have succeeded was if George Bush's Compassionate Conservatisim had succeeded and it clearly didn't. The Republicans are now freely attacking the lose spending under Bush which they wouldn't do until now that he is out of office.

You will likely learn that Republicans are fiscally Conservative........when they are out of power.  As soon as they get into power, they spend like drunken sailors. 

This only happened once, under Bush Jr. when they became arrogant after 10 years of controlling both houses of congress. Reagan shrunk government and Bush Sr. tried to trim the deficit (though he had to raise taxes to do so).

It's crazy to believe that populists will take over the Republican party. The major voices of the party at the moment are fiscal conservatives who barely even mention social issues. Think McCain, Paul Ryan, Romney (after the campaign), and the majority of the GOP congressmen. If anything, the fiscal conservative side of the party is having a comeback after 8 years of silence.

Besides, the top three Democrats in the primaries were progressives, so to say they're headed towards quasi-libertarianism is a baseless analysis.

[Vepres]

It's very worrisome though because you had people like Santorum (gone thank god), DeMint, Cornyn and Brownback running the show.  These people have no clue that they are the definition of the problem and not the solution.

It's very concerning because to a lot of northerners, the party is seen as blatantly intolerant and ignorant.  Whether true or not, the perception, which is always reality is that the party is run by religious fascists and when you have people like DeMint, Delay and others that consistently make ignorant remarks about human nature, etc, it looks very bad and unfortunately, having gone to college down south, you have some very ignorant people and uneducated human beings that revere the GOP nowadays.  How to reverse that, I have no idea, but it's a big problem.

For every DeMint or Palin you have a McCain, a Romney, or a Collins.

No you don't.  Collins is really the only true moderate out of those three.  McCain is more of a moderate-conservative but his campaign tacked quite a bit to the right.  Who knows what the hell Romney is.  The guy that ran for Gov was a moderate, the one that ran for President was a staunch conservative.

But they don't go around trumpeting their social conservatism with a holier than thou attitude.

[Vepres]

In twenty years, when the history of the Great Realignment is being written - that is to say, when political historians look back to try to find the precise moment in history when an opening was made that allowed economically liberal populists like Huckabee to capture the Republican Party - they will say that Bill Clinton made it happen.

More to the point, it was Bill Clinton - a southerner (but not a Southerner) - who solidified the cultural South for the Republicans, and forced into the Republican camp a political base wholly alien to it previously: those whose political lineage could be traced to the theocratic populism of William Jennings Bryan, ignoramuses whose sole political desire is to see Augustine's socialistic City of God made manifest in the United States. By cutting these people loose from the Democratic coalition, the New Democrats traded them with a still-small, but growing, civil libertarian bloc that is waiting for a Democratic candidate to come along and speak their language.

At the same time, the populists have infested the Republican Party to the core, and the first President to be elected out of this newly-grafted wing was George W. Bush. He appealed, like no Republican before him, to those groups who are defined chiefly by their alienation from modern society: the heritors of the agrarian yeoman, whose socialism is a socialism of the fields and a socialism of the spirit.

In the future, we will consider 1996 to be the underlying cause of a political reversal that will eventually end up in a repeat of 1896.

First off, Einzige your analysis of the American political cycle is more indepth than a vast majority of people in this nation. Barack Obama is not the future of the Democratic party, he's the past. He is the last harrah of progressivism for the Democratic party. I will go as far as to say that the rise of the New Democrat wing was born as a result of the election of Ronald Reagan. As much credit as Reagan got for helping bastardize the Republican party with his enormous deficit spending, he would inevitably be given credit for the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, a wing that would swear to fight for the civil liberties the Religious Right swore to defeat. The fate of the Democratic party was sealed with the election of William Jefferson Clinton in 1992, the year that the New Democratic wing of the party took control. The widespread public outrage at incidents like Waco, the assault weapons ban, the failure of HillaryCare, among other things, were the beginning of the end of the progressive wing. The election of Barack Obama will not bring forth the resurgence of the progressive wing, rather it will be the death knell of it. The economic nationalism of this administration (Buy Murican), the draconian gun laws it will try or will enact, the even more draconian drug laws it will enforce, the continuation of the Patriot Act, and other things can only inevitably result in the rise of the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, led by people like Russ Feingold and Kristen Gillibrand, who will guarantee undisputable civil liberties for the American people. These will be the freedom fighters of the new era in American politics, idealistic warriors who fought tooth and nail for the defense of all civil liberties and not just some. They will swear off the decades of blind allegiance to the power of big government that their predecessors bowed down to.

The GOP, being obsessed with the preservation of state, would ulitmately become the statist oppressor to the libertarianism of the Democratic Party. The hatred of individual rights brought on by George Bush, the disregard for spending brought on by Ronald Reagan, and outright condemnation of individuality brought on by Mike Huckabee, would help in the rise of the batsh**t insane socially conservative economically populist wing of the GOP. Seig Heil!

This may sound batsh**t insane, but we'll see who is laughing (or crying) in twenty years.

What happens if the growth of Gov't under Obama drives the Libertarians from the Democratic party? I don't see this happening especially now with the backlash against Obama's spending giving a new birth to fiscal Conservativism with the GOP and with upcoming leaders like Mike Pence and Paul Ryan I don't see how a Populist Republican party is feasible. The only way that would have succeeded was if George Bush's Compassionate Conservatisim had succeeded and it clearly didn't. The Republicans are now freely attacking the lose spending under Bush which they wouldn't do until now that he is out of office.

You will likely learn that Republicans are fiscally Conservative........when they are out of power.  As soon as they get into power, they spend like drunken sailors. 

This only happened once, under Bush Jr. when they became arrogant after 10 years of controlling both houses of congress. Reagan shrunk government and Bush Sr. tried to trim the deficit (though he had to raise taxes to do so).

It also happened in the 1990's after Republicans took over.  They realized that they needed earmarks and pork-barrel projects to get their members reelected. 

Yes I have commented on that. But generally the period from 1995-1999 was the first era of fiscally conservative Gov't since the 1920's. From 1995-1999 earmarks went down, welfare was reformed and the annual growth of Gov't spending was reduced. It wasn't untill 1999 that the Republicans completely abandoned fiscal conservativism, and it generally coincides with the rise of two Texans George Bush and Tom Delay. After 1999 we saw the growth of earmarks like never before; the creation of unfounded mandates, Medicare Part D; and Government Agencies, Homeland Security. What I am hopefull of is the return to the ideals and core beliefs, no matter what those beliefs may be, and have that determine the strength or weakness of our candidates not how much they can bribe there constituents.

My hope is for the Republicans to be in there mid 1990's form when they retake congress and not some corrupt, pseudo-populist socially conservative hybrid whose only existence is to further the interests of the incumbents and achieve no real reforms except those that beef up the poll numbers for next election. Its amazing that 30 years into the modern Conservative movement we have only squeezed out four years of reasonable fiscal conservativism.

I'm sure they will. It is in their electoral interests. After all, last time they abandoned their promises of fiscal responsibility and small government, they were slaughtered (2008).

[Vepres]

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).

[Vepres]

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).

This will also probably lose Republicans Appalachia and parts of the rural south. 

They could sweep the west, including the Pacific states (California is a stretch, but OR and WA aren't), and win in parts of New England and New Jersey as well as the upper Midwest.

[Vepres]

Here's what the party strengths could be with a purely moderate libertarian GOP. Yes, their base vote goes down, but they have many more opportunities to win, which would help in the congress.

Though the south would be stronger Democrat in NCYank's scenario, with Alabama and Kentucky in the GOP column at least.

Edit: Just noticed, it looks a lot like Ford vs. Carter. Interesting.

[Vepres]

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.

[Vepres]

Verpres, his version of libertarianism borders on anarchy. He has openly stated he believes the weak should be "culled".

Wow...

[Vepres]

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.

[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.