Is there any actual evidence that parties can "change" their brand/image?

[Matty]

We see it often said that, after election losses, parties (whether in America or elsewhere) attempt to "rebrand" to reach groups that rejected them.

Is there any actual evidence that this has successfully happened? Seems like when parties win after years of being in wilderness, it has more to do with crappy national conditions and/or crappy ruling party candidate steering people towards the opposition party.

[TML]

Look at the Republican Party in the last 50-60 years or so...

[Kingpoleon]

I mean, most things can change. The only things certain in this life are taxes, change, and death. And I’m not so sure about death.

[darklordoftech]

Republicans were seen as "sane" in 1960, "crazy" in 1964, and "sane" again in 1968, Republicans on Watergate in 1980, Democrats on crime and welfare in 1992, Republicans on entitlements and immigration in 2000 and again in 2010

[Agonized-Statism]

GOP went from "those rich people" to "those poor people" in a decade. Not necessarily their intention, but different generations interpret things differently.

[Virginiá]

Most of what parties do to try and rebrand or otherwise change their image fall far short of anything meaningful. It's all mostly a waste. The only people who seem to be able to affect large change in this regard are presidents popular with their party's base. American politics revolves around the president. It's all most voters seem able or at least willing to pay attention to.

[RINO Tom]

GOP went from "those rich people" to "those poor people" in a decade. Not necessarily their intention, but different generations interpret things differently.

Ignoring all of the data that makes this claim ridiculous, let's just focus on people's perceptions ... your average person really didn't view the GOP of 2004 that differently from the GOP of 2016 just because Orange County and NOVA voted differently, dude.  The GOP was still referred to as a party you'd only be in if you were a racist, religious fanatic, xenophobe, blood thirsty war hawk or selfish, rich asshole.  You'll still hear every one of those today.  It's the election nerds who analyze maps that perceive a huge change.

Obviously, there have been significant changes, but not to the degree of "those rich people" to "those poor people."

[OSR stands with Israel]

GOP went from "those rich people" to "those poor people" in a decade. Not necessarily their intention, but different generations interpret things differently.

Ignoring all of the data that makes this claim ridiculous, let's just focus on people's perceptions ... your average person really didn't view the GOP of 2004 that differently from the GOP of 2016 just because Orange County and NOVA voted differently, dude.  The GOP was still referred to as a party you'd only be in if you were a racist, religious fanatic, xenophobe, blood thirsty war hawk or selfish, rich asshole.  You'll still hear every one of those today.  It's the election nerds who analyze maps that perceive a huge change.

Obviously, there have been significant changes, but not to the degree of "those rich people" to "those poor people."

and the fact that the GOP was winning those suburbs was used to call the GOP a racist, sexist and selfish rich assholes party .

[Agonized-Statism]

GOP went from "those rich people" to "those poor people" in a decade. Not necessarily their intention, but different generations interpret things differently.

Ignoring all of the data that makes this claim ridiculous, let's just focus on people's perceptions ... your average person really didn't view the GOP of 2004 that differently from the GOP of 2016 just because Orange County and NOVA voted differently, dude.  The GOP was still referred to as a party you'd only be in if you were a racist, religious fanatic, xenophobe, blood thirsty war hawk or selfish, rich asshole.  You'll still hear every one of those today.  It's the election nerds who analyze maps that perceive a huge change.

Obviously, there have been significant changes, but not to the degree of "those rich people" to "those poor people."

Thanks. I'm talking about Democratic rhetoric, which does have a part in shaping cultural perceptions.