Is the Republican Party a Party in Decline?

Sean Trende and David Byler attempt an empirical examination of the question and conclude:

Overall, this gives the Republicans an index score of 33.8. This is the Republican Party’s best showing in the index since 1928, and marks only the third time that the party has been above 15 in the index since the end of World War II.

It’s an interesting article that you might want to take a glance at. As far as the White House goes the only poll that matters is the one conducted on the first Tuesday of November, 2016 and no index of party strength will change.

That having been said, I believe that Democrats would do well to call a moratorium on dismissing the Republicans as the party of the past or a spent force and pay more attention to the here and now. It’s a failing that progressives frequently have. Training their eyes firmly on the horizon may result in mistaken judgments about the present.

8 comments… add one
  • PD Shaw Link

    Interesting. What stands out in the line graph is that the President’s party appears to consistently lose seats over the course of his term, even FDR’s term. Clearly, the two-party system has matured to seek some sort of equilibrium. (Reagan’s two terms show the fewest losses, but he possibly helped sustain Southern Democrats)

  • PD Shaw Link

    Not sure about all of the averaging. For example, House performance is an average of number of seats and popular vote. This is ostensibly to weaken gerrymandering.

    I simply don’t think one can avoid the fact that each party has built in territorial advantages based upon where the lines are drawn, whether the lines are state boundaries, political machinations or the vagaries of where core constituents live. I think I’d just count House seats and leave it at that. It tells us how well that party is doing, it doesn’t need to theorize how it is achieving it, or what people’s preference would be independent of the choices on the ballot.

    If you want to get at the later, you could add one more performance metric: Gallop Poll’s Party Identification.

  • steve Link

    From 2004……..

    This last election was very overwhelmingly in favor of the RNC, more so than I would have thought. I expected the senate and house to become more evenly divided instead the DNC lost even more seats.

    Has the DNC�s drift to the far left put it in the position of being split or even superceded by a more conservative third party? Are the internal pressures of this defeat enough to possibly rupture the fragile alliance of special interest groups that make up the DNC?

    If the democrats face another defeat like this in 2008 we�re looking at the possibility of the RNC have super-majorities in both the house and senate (although the senate is most important). If that occurs the DNC will be unable to block any actions the RNC might wish to take.

    With a Bush win now appearing inevitable, the Supreme Court will likely shift to the right for the next 20-30 years.

  • Modulo Myself Link

    Staring at the horizon is a universal fault. Interpreting that as a fallacy of your opponents is being self-serving. It’s self-serving in such an obvious way that it’s pathologically blind, or a rhetorical move.

    It’s like the idea that Obama has proclaimed it Morning In America because the unemployment rate dropped below where Mitt Romney said it would be in his presidency, albeit a year earlier. He hasn’t done any such thing. Making Obama into some gloating egomaniac/narcissist is a disturbing misreading of who he is. Either that it comes from such an insecure place that it’s pathetic.

    I don’t think the GOP is in decline. But I do think that the usual shit isn’t working for them. That’s why people are stuck accusing progressives of being human, because there’s nothing left in the tank.

    Evidence? Dude from Andover and Yale accuses opponent of being an elitist because opponent knows details of legislative acts. That’s it, that’s the extent of the GOP strategy since 1992 that does not involve pointing to burning buildings and gays and trying to terrify retirees.

    Meanwhile, the GOP pundits are so dumb they’re defending Scott Walker’s use of black money while attacking Hillary Clinton for taking money. They honestly don’t understand that there’s no difference. It’s incredible. They could be tearing into the Clintons for cashing in. They could use those very words while running a candidate who isn’t beholden to money of the most total bullshit. Meanwhile, look at how quickly and easily Clinton was able to talk to about mass incarceration to appeal to the left. That’s a real issue. It took her a week. She just did it. Admitting that sometimes the police are sometimes acting not in the best civic interest of all sometimes would be a major one-year development in policy for anyone not named Rand Paul, or also Rand Paul. Compared to ‘religious liberty’, it’s like that raised to a million.

    It cut against her husband’s entire position on crime. Yet the GOP is baffled about how to explain Iraq. It was twelve years ago! You can’t explain anything? In one year, they’re going to be no further into the past than they are now.

    So, yes, there’s no decline in the sense that Oklahoma or Alabama will turn liberal. And Hillary Clinton could lose the election. If she wins, the narrative will be that in the northeast, the Reagan Democrats are no more. Not only that, but the South and Midwest will become like New York in the 70s, fiefdoms to antiquated ideas causing flight. It may not be true, but the entire narrative that drove the 70s wasn’t true either.

  • Not only that, but the South and Midwest will become like New York in the 70s, fiefdoms to antiquated ideas causing flight. It may not be true, but the entire narrative that drove the 70s wasn’t true either.

    That’s certainly true in Illinois but I don’t think that’s what you meant.

  • CStanley Link

    Compared to ‘religious liberty’, it’s like that raised to a million.

    All you are saying is that you like the left’s red meat but not the right’s, and presenting that as evidence of what will “work” for candidates. Kind of funny in a comment that started off berating Dave for personal bias in his political analysis.

  • Cstanley Link

    As for the rhetoric about opposing parties in decline- does anyone actually believe that? I’ve always assumed it was just a device used to boost morale.

  • Andy Link

    The GoP is probably in decline, but I don’t think it matters much. The GoP is the Yin to the Democrat’s Yang. They can’t exist without each other and one will not be ascendent over the other for long.

Leave a Comment