Did the GOP slide begin in the 1990s?

[CJK]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I've long believed the Republican decline started in the later years of the 90's, and they basically just got lucky with 9/11. They lost power for several election cycles after 1994 in some way or another each time, until 2002.

[Smash255]

Yes.  The Bush administration certainly helped to expand and quicken the GOP slide, but many of the GOP's problems, especially with suburban voters started in the 90's (and in some cases even a bit before then).  Some suburban areas shifted from Republican to Democratic in the 90s, others remained Republican, but not nearly as strongly GOP as they were then went Dems this decade. 

[DS0816]

Include 1992, when Bill Clinton unseated George Bush and took 22 states away from his 40 states/1988 win column. So many of them populous states that tend to vote alike from one election to the next (and they've voted Democratic ever since): California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania.

Add in the four states from New England that used to back the Republicans: Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and especially Vermont.

Don't forget Delaware.

And add Iowa and New Mexico, which (along with N.H.) have voted Democratic in four of the two decades' five elections.

And factor Michael Dukakis's break-thru, in Election 1988, with carrying Ia. as well as Oregon and Washington; Ia. has been Democratic in five of the last six elections, and Ore. and Wash. have been Democratic in all six.

Let us not forget those routinely Democratic states already established: New Englanders Massachusetts and Rhode Island, New York and Wisconsin (agreeing on all past ten elections, 1972-2008), as well as Maryland, Minnesota, and Hawaii (which has voted the same as R.I. since its first vote, in Election 1960). And we have, of course, District of Columbia.

[Mr.Phips]

The slide started around 1996 and accelerated until 9/11 and resumed around the same time of Bush's reelection in 2004. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The GOP slide began in the 90's. I set the date as being 1999. That is when the Republicans abandoned the ideals of 1994 completelly and focused on the ideal of incumbency and self preservative through pork and election time votes on social issues like the Abortion ban amendment and the Federal Marrriage Amendment not to have them pass but to force Dems in Conservative districts to take tough votes and allow moderate Republicans a chance to break with party orthodoxy just in time for the Election. Granted they had begun to go astray as earlier as 1997 when Rep. Shuster(R-PA, the elder) as chairmen of the one of the Appropriations subcommittees passed a bloated transportation bill full of earmarks. However nothing compared to the wholesale selling of beliefs by Republicans Left, Right and Center to people who cared only for reelection and power. Many of the reformers left nabbing Governorships, Senate Seats like Mark Sandford, Tom Coburn, and Jim DeMint. Others left and failed to win like Van Hilleary, Ed Bryant, Ernest Istook, and Frank Largent. Luckily for us we got a fine group of freshmen in 1998, 2000, and 2002, including Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, A couple in the GA delegation, Marsha Blackburn, and many more. So there is hope that we will yet take the right course at least in terms of the House. 

[sg0508]

When the religious right took over for good in the late 90s, it was all over.  We made gains in 02 because of 9/11 and in 04 because the southern states happened to vacate that year in the Senate.  Notice how we lost the seat in CO though.

The democrats appear to liberals and moderates/suburban voters.  The conservatives will be enoguh in the south and that's it.

[Saxwsylvania]

The GOP slide began in August 2005.  Since November 2008, it has slowly been recovering.

[sg0508]

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.

[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.

[sg0508]

You tell that to the Jim DeMint's, Marsha Blackburns and the other social idiots of our party and see what they think.  These social conservatives want their platform as #1, even if it means losing.  There is no room for defaction in the party anymore.

And, those voters we've lost have turned to vote for democrats.

[Verily]

The Republicans have been in decline since 1994. This is likely to be the nature of US politics from now on: Parties win big victories and then slowly erode. This element was never really there prior to 1994 because US national politics, at least in Congress, tended to be decided at a local, less "partisan" level prior to the 1994 elections. 1994 changed that, ending a lot of the local-level political structures in the South especially (and, prior to the break-up of the Solid South, elsewhere in the country, too) that had previously prevented particularly ideologically cohesive parties.

The US's odd Presidential system with intermediate-year legislative elections means we might see double-gains as in 2006 and 2008 fairly frequently, once in a solely legislative election and then again in a Presidential year. That didn't happen in 1996, of course, but that was probably because there was an incumbent. I also suspect that the cycles will typically be shorter than 1994-2006, but the Republicans had the advantage of a terrorist attack on their watch. No September 11 and 2002 probably would have resembled 2006 (maybe not so much due to redistricting, which throws another wrench in things since the US is one of the few developed countries where redistricting is explicitly partisan in nature).

[sg0508]

The party slowly made itself unelectable by creating a platform that is too far right and too narrow with no allowance for opposing points of view. 

You could even make a case that the 1992 RNC speech by Buchanan started it.  Remember how many moderate republicans were completely turned off by that?

[bhouston79]

The party slowly made itself unelectable by creating a platform that is too far right and too narrow with no allowance for opposing points of view. 

You could even make a case that the 1992 RNC speech by Buchanan started it.  Remember how many moderate republicans were completely turned off by that?

I think your right on the money, and it's likely to get worse before it gets better for the GOP since they still seem to be buying into the false idea that they lost in 2006 and 2008 because they weren't conservative enough.  They won't win national elections again until they move significantly back toward the center.

[sg0508]

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.

[Reaganfan]

The GOP slide began in August 2005.  Since November 2008, it has slowly been recovering.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The GOP ascendancy began by pandering to the "Angry White Man" crowd.
But this strategy proved to be short-sighted because at the same time alienated the fast-growing minorities and the moderate suburbanites.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You tell that to the Jim DeMint's, Marsha Blackburns and the other social idiots of our party and see what they think.  These social conservatives want their platform as #1, even if it means losing.  There is no room for defaction in the party anymore.

And, those voters we've lost have turned to vote for democrats.

Listen to me Sg. Those people you just mention are some of our best, you know why they are principled. They also represent there states well. As a moderate you must know how to agree with somebody only 50 to 60% of time. Isn't that what moderation is all about. Well lets you show some that towards a few conservatives. If I have to choose between a principled honest moderate and corrupt conservative I would chose the moderate. The same goes the oposite I would chose a principled honest conservative over a corrupt moderate. What you chose Sg in the last one of these. Would you chose a corrupt moderate over an honest conservative?

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, you and I are going to get along just fine.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The GOP ascendancy began by pandering to the "Angry White Man" crowd.
But this strategy proved to be short-sighted because at the same time alienated the fast-growing minorities and the moderate suburbanites.

It was our only option at the time, cause we could no longer squeeze enough Senate and House seats out of the Northeast, and Midwest. You look at the Senate maps of the 1920's and compare them to the 50's you realise that the GOP when in the majority in the 1920's only held that position do to dominance over the Northeast and Midwest, with the rise of Unions and the growing support among Urbanites for Democrats in the Depression and afterwards, the Republicans couldn't dominate enough to hold the majority in Marginal years and when at bad year comes along like 1958 the GOP got cremed almost as if the country was back in the Depression b/c the GOP lacked base region which they dominated. The Republicans choose to make the West as there dominate Region which fit in with its growing libertarianism, and led to the Rise of Goldwater as national figure. However they realised that even with the GOP west and a competative NE and MW they still couldn't hold a majority in Congress or the Presidency unless they split open the Solid South(See 1968-1976 elections).

[sg0508]

DeMint?  What's principaled about him? That he thinks single women and gays shouldn't teach in public schools?  Great representation of the party there.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

DeMint?  What's principaled about him? That he thinks single women and gays shouldn't teach in public schools?  Great representation of the party there.

If you want us let you guys call the shots in NY and etc, then you better not try to call the shots in SC. I agree, DeMint has said some crazy things as has Tom Coburn but if you look at the alternatives which are Big Gov't populists who are just as batsh**t insane on social issues, I much prefer DeMint and Coburn, you can't argue that they support Bigger Gov't when they rail against spending every single day.

[12th Doctor]

1994 was the last time people had "a reason" to vote Republican.  What I mean is that there was a clearly expressed Republican platform of national ideas that were well communicated to the public at large.  The decline began when, for various reasons, Republicans failed to deliver.  If you look at 1998, really that should have been the Republican's year, and yet they just barely held ground.

I don't think people in this country ever surrendered on their natural tendency to vote Democrat.

However, during the early part of this decade, Democrats were more than happy to supply reasons for why people ought not to vote for them.  Not that they have really changed much, it's just that Republicans stole that cherry from them.

[Mr.Phips]

1994 was the last time people had "a reason" to vote Republican.  What I mean is that there was a clearly expressed Republican platform of national ideas that were well communicated to the public at large.  The decline began when, for various reasons, Republicans failed to deliver.  If you look at 1998, really that should have been the Republican's year, and yet they just barely held ground.

Republicans actually did quite well in 1998 considering how many Democratic leaning seats that they held and the fact that they lost almost no ground in 1996, when they should have probably lost the House. 

[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.

[12th Doctor]

Of course, the second chance the Republicans got because of the terrible Democrat reaction to the early 2000's pretty much jumped the shark in with the Federal Marriage Amendment.  That is when the GOP successfully proved that they were, in fact, more hostile to the values of most Americans.