An autopsy of liberal Republicans

[ag]

NY House Delegation:

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

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

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

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

[ag]

The Republican party isn't dead in the Northeast, but it better do something to recover soon. Things are, obviously, not too disastrous in the "border North", including PA, and even NJ. But in the "deep North" - NY and New England - things are getting dangerousl. So far they aren't irreversible, but they mayl get there - if a regional opposition to the Dems emerges.

What makes the reverse parallel w/ the South incomplete is that Dems have natural constituencies in the old Confederacy. Blacks, universities, Northern transplants - all these, taken together, guarantee them a non-trivial voting share - not enoght to win, but not much below 40% either (usually, in fact, above).  Thus, there is simply no space for another alternative - the Dem vote block is solid enough, so that splintering the Reps would only lead to Dems being elected. The regional majority (R) and minority (D) are well established and, it seems, stable.

In the "deep North", though, there does not seem to be a natural Republican constituency remaining. Republicans are fast becoming a "foreign" party, w/ small core, that in some places is already insufficiently large to gurarantee the party the role of primary opposition - or the victory, if the Dems split (note proliferation of "third-party" politicians in the area).  The striking fact is, that in New England the rural areas are now often more partisanly Democratic, than the urban ones. Dems now enjoy the same share of the rural vote in and around Berkshires, as Republicans do in much of rural "white" South. But, at least, Dems can boast victories in many, if not most of Southern urban centers -  no such luck for Republicans in Boston.  

Even many of those, who still vote R in the Northeast frequently do this not without misgivings, and would be receptive to a local 'yankee" alternative to the Dems, not associated with the alien "national" Republican party.  The party "shell" is still there, and ambitious politicians sometimes find it useful as means of ballot access (see, say, Bloomberg or Carcieri). But there is, more and more often, simply not a sufficiently reliable Republican electorate out there to keep Dems united by the threat of a Republican victory. If a local alternative to the Republican line becomes well-established, there is little that Republicans as a party could give to attract winning candidates.  And if that happens, things might, indeed, become irreversible.

The new alternative could emerge either on the left (pushing Dems to become the "conservative" party in New England), or in the center, as a local "progressive republican" party, distinct from the "national republicans". But if it does, I'd be very concerned about the future of the GOP in the region.

[ag]

So, here is the dyamics of Dem presidential vote share in some reasonably rural "Deep Northeastern" counties. In my view, this is even worse than the cities and suburbs: there you could blame minorities, ethnics, you name it. These are all, if I am not mistaken, deadly white and often WASP. In VT and rural MA it is especially striking, but the trends are very robust everywhere - and I could get tonnes of examples more.

Berkshire, MA
1980 43.30%
1984 46.63%
1988 60.78%
1992 54.40%
1996 64.73%
2000 63.85%
2004 73.12%
2008 75.17%

Franklin, MA
1980 39.27%
1984 49.16%
1988 58.30%
1992 48.14%
1996 60.25%
2000 53.78%
2004 68.35%
2008 72.47%

Windham, VT
1980 35.12%
1984 44.89%
1988 52.75%
1992 53.31%
1996 55.12%
2000 52.67%
2004 66.43%
2008 73.02%

Chittenden, VT
1980 40.40%
1984 44.46%
1988 50.89%
1992 50.36%
1996 56.84%
2000 54.37%
2004 63.54%
2008 71.44%

Lamoille, VT
1980 35.04%
1984 36.49%
1988 43.78%
1992 43.97%
1996 54.40%
2000 50.47%
2004 62.69%
2008 70.37%

Carroll, NH (the only New England county LBJ lost. 98% white)
1980 21.02%
1984 24.14%
1988 28.09%
1992 33.44%
1996 42.77%
2000 41.26%
2004 47.19%
2008 52.39%

Grafton, NH
1980 26.82%
1984 32.08%
1988 37.41%
1992 42.34%
1996 50.26%
2000 47.31%
2004 55.74%
2008 63.03%

Clinton, NY
1980 42.76%
1984 35.49%
1988 44.36%
1992 40.27%
1996 52.95%
2000 50.86%
2004 52.24%
2008 60.64%

Essex, NY
1980 37.95%
1984 29.56%
1988 38.70%
1992 35.40%
1996 46.47%
2000 44.19%
2004 45.95%
2008 55.88%

Litchfield, CT
1980 34.98%
1984 33.45%
1988 42.91%
1992 36.14%
1996 45.92%
2000 47.87%
2004 46.19%
2008 51.57%

[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.

[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.  

[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

[ag]

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.

However, there is a thing the local Reps could do. They could do their best to disassociate from the national party, to establish some sort of a clear "federal relationship" with it. Call themselves "Progressive Republican Party" or "New England Republican Party" - or perhaps, simply "New England Progressive Party".  Formally adopt a socially-liberal platform - make sure the national Republican leadership goes publically apoplectic about it. Make sure to say nasty things about the southern Republican politicians in public. Promise to be "conditional" in their support of the national party, once elected. In fact, run "against" the national Republicans. It could help.